Images of Torah: From the Second-Temple Period to the Middle Ages 900454321X, 9789004543218

Table of contents :
38 Images of Torah From the Second-Temple Period to the Middle Ages
38 Images of Torah From the Second-Temple Period to the Middle Ages

Citation preview

Images of Torah

Jewish and Christian Perspectives Series Editorial Board Doron Bar (Schechter Institute) Marcel Poorthuis (Faculty of Catholic Theology of Tilburg University) Eyal Regev (Bar-Ilan University) Lieve M. Teugels (Protestant Theological University)

Advisory Board Yehoyada Amir – Shaye Cohen – Judith Frishman David Golinkin – Martin Goodman – Alberdina Houtman Tamar Kadari – Clemens Leonhard – Gerard Rouwhorst Joshua Schwartz – Vered Tohar – Israel Yuval

volume 38

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/jcp

Images of Torah From the Second Temple Period to the Middle Ages

By

Jeong Mun Heo

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Heo, Jeong Mun, author. Title: Images of Torah : from the Second-Temple period to the Middle Ages /  by Jeong Mun Heo. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, [2023] | Series: Jewish and Christian  perspectives series, 1388-2074 ; vol. 38 | Revised version of the  author’s doctoral dissertation submitted to Yeshiva University, New  York, 2021. | Includes bibliographical references. Identifiers: LCCN 2023015698 (print) | LCCN 2023015699 (ebook) | ISBN  9789004543218 (hardback) | ISBN 9789004543225 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: Bible. Pentateuch–Criticism, interpretation,  etc.–History–Early church, ca. 30-600. | Bible. Pentateuch–Criticism,  interpretation, etc., Jewish–History–To 1500. | Church  history–Primitive and early church, ca. 30-600. |  Judaism–History–Post-exilic period, 586 B.C.-210 A.D. |  Judaism–History–Medieval and early modern period, 425-1789. |  Rabbinical literature–History and criticism. | Christian literature,  Early–History and criticism. Classification: LCC BS500 .H39 2023 (print) | LCC BS500 (ebook) | DDC  220.609–dc23/eng/20230509 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023015698 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2023015699

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 1388-2074 isbn 978-90-04-54321-8 (hardback) isbn 978-90-04-54322-5 (e-book) Copyright 2023 by Jeong Mun Heo. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau, V&R unipress and Wageningen Academic. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

To my beloved father, Sang Jin Heo, and my beloved mother, Yeong Ja Roh

∵

Contents Acknowledgements xi List of Tables xiii Abbreviations xiv Introduction 1 1 Originality, Significance and Critical Implications of This Research 1 2 Statement of Problem, Current Research and Critical Questions 2 3 Research Methodology: Grounding in Moshe Idel’s Panoramic Approach 5 3.1 Idel’s Phenomenology: Models and Panoramic Approach 5 3.2 Idel’s Panoramic Approach: The History of Ideas Based on Experience 17 4 Research Methodology with an Outline of Chapters 27

Part 1 Images of Torah in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods 1 Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah 35 1 The Conceptual and Historical Backdrops of Torah 35 2 Various Derivative Forms of Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah 51 2.1 Personified Wisdom in Proverbs 51 2.2 Personified Wisdom in Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Qumran Texts 62 2.3 Philo’s Logos 73 2.4 The Johannine Logos 80 2.5 Memra 91 2.6 Shekhinah 106 3 Intertextual and Theological Nexuses between the Hypostatic Notions of Torah 115 4 Theological and Phenomenological Implications 131

viii

Contents

2 The Images of Torah in Early Christianity and Multifaceted Judaism 140 1 Torah, the Foundation of Jesus as Personified Wisdom and Incarnate Logos 140 2 Jesus in the Gospels as a Derivative Form of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah 147 2.1 Jesus as Incarnate Logos in the Fourth Gospel 147 2.2 Jesus as Personified Wisdom in the Synoptics 150 3 Three Images of Torah: Angelic, Messianic, and God-Like 154 3.1 An Angelic Image of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah 155 3.2 A God-Like Image of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah 158 3.3 A Messianic Image of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah 182 3.3.1 A Messianic Image Related to an Angelic Image of Torah 182 3.3.2 A Messianic Image Related to a God-Like Image of Torah 190 4 Critical Findings and Implications: Exegetical and Phenomenological 198 4.1 Supposed Primitive Forms of the Images of Torah as a Mediator 198 4.2 Two Supposed Primitive Traditions: Logos-Centered and Wisdom-Centered 202 4.3 Theological and Phenomenological Implications 205

Part 2 Images of Torah from the Second Temple Period to the Middle Ages Introduction to Part 2 211 3 An Angelic Image of Torah in the Medieval Jewish Philosophical Tradition 213 1 The Continuity of Angelic Images of Torah: From the Logos to the Active Intellect 213 2 Angelic Images of Torah Related to the Idea of Devekut to the Logos and Active Intellect 222 2.1 In Philonic Thought 222 2.2 The Idea of Devekut to the Active Intellect in the Thought of Maimonides 225

Contents

ix

2.3 The Idea of Noetic Union: Maimonides, Gersonides, and Islamic Philosophers 230 2.4 In the Thought of Abulafia and Gikatilla Based on Maimonides 239 4 A God-Like Image of Torah in the Medieval Jewish Mystical Tradition 256 1 The Continuity of God-Like Images of Torah in the Sefirot 256 2 God-Like Image of Torah Related to the Idea of Unio Mystica to the Sefirot 283 2.1 In the Philonic Tradition 284 2.2 In the Bahiric and Geronese Traditions 290 2.3 In the Abulafian Tradition 295 2.4 In the Zoharic and Gikatillian Traditions 300 3 Critical Findings and Implications 308 5 A Messianic Image of Torah in the Jewish Philosophic and Mystical Tradition 313 1 The Continuity of Messianic Images of Torah 315 2 Messianic Image of Torah Related to the Ideas of Devekut and Unio Mystica 324 2.1 In the Thought of Medieval Jewish Philosophers 324 2.2 In the Abulafian Tradition 330 2.3 In the Zoharic and Gikatillian Traditions 338 6 Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah from the Second Temple Period through the Middle Ages 347 1 On the Angelic Image of Torah 347 2 On the God-Like Image of Torah 351 3 On the Messianic Image of Torah 357 4 Reconsidering Idel’s Panoramic Approach: The Images of Torah as Model and Phenomenology 364 Conclusion 367 Afterword 375 Bibliography 378 Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources 417 Index of Subjects 433 Index of Modern Authors 442

Acknowledgements Above all, I sincerely thank my esteemed supervisor, Professor Jonathan  V.  Dauber, as my model of a scholar for teaching me a great deal of Jewish mysticism and for his continuous commitment to my intellectual development, as well as for tireless support and encouragement throughout my studies. I thank for his wise guidance at every stage of the research and for his unwavering support and belief in me. He subjected the manuscript of the dissertation to a meticulous reading but also offered many suggestions and constructive critiques. He never stopped encouraging me and offering me his wise counsels and valuable comments, as well as patiently answering all the questions I had. I have benefited greatly from the deep and wide scopes of his wisdom and knowledge, and his invaluable teachings not only in the field of Jewish mysticism but also in the academic journey of my life. Without his help and wise guidance this dissertation would have not been the same! I hope these magnificent benefits will continue for years to come and, with great joy and gratitude, throughout my journey walking on the road of scholarship. In addition, I have to thank the three readers who evaluated the final version and gave me invaluable comments. Without their excellent teachings and supports, this doctorate would surely have taken much more time. I thank Professor Daniel Rynhold for his support and for providing me with a good basis in medieval Jewish philosophy. I have to recall that during the period of my studies at Revel, he looked after the progress of my studies as well as administrative and financial matters, and, as I admire, showed an exemplar of Jewish philosophy as a practical way of life, not as mere academic knowledge. I thank Professor Richard Hidary for his support and critique and for giving me critical insight and sharing with his extraordinary knowledge of rabbinic literature and for serving as a reader of my dissertation. I thank Professor Richard J. Clifford for serving as a reader of my dissertation and for broadening my understanding of Hebrew Bible and Wisdom Literature. I am particularly honored and deeply grateful to him for reading my doctoral thesis again in addition to his guidance as an advisor for my ThM thesis and for giving me the opportunity to receive invaluable comments. Furthermore, I thank my consultant, Benny Morduchowitz who is an English Professor, for editing the entire manuscript for stylistic matters. My gratitude extends to the Faculty of Bernard Revel Graduate School of Jewish

xii

Acknowledgements

Studies and its staff for the financial and administrative supports to undertake and complete my studies at Yeshiva University in New York. Finally, without these generous supports, this doctorate would surely have taken much more time. Without the support, encouragement, and friendship rendered by many people around me, to whom I sincerely wish to express sincere gratitude, this whole work and process could not have reached accomplishment.

Tables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

The relationship between Wisdom, and Torah in relation to Zion 64 The intertextual allusions between Sirach, Genesis, and Proverbs 65 Evidence of quotation of Sir 24:23 from Dt 33:4 67 Preexistent evidence of the relationship between Wisdom and Torah 67 Evidence of personified Wisdom in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon 68 Intertextual nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah in Wisdom of Solomon 69 Evidence of personified Wisdom in relation to Torah in Qumran texts 72 Gen 1:26–27, 2:7 in the LXX 75 Chiastic structure of the Johannine Prologue 84 “Step parallelism” in Jn 1:1–5 85 Intertextual allusions to the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah 116 Intertextual evidence of Wisdom and Torah in the MT (Masoratic Text) and LXX 141 Parallelism between Woman Wisdom and Wisdom Folly 161 Chiastic structure of Prov 9:7–9 164 Intertextual and compositional nexus between Prov 1 and 9 on personified Wisdom 165 Intertextual and compositional relationship between Prov 8 and 9 166 The intertextual allusions between Prov 9 and 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 31 in Proverbs 167

Abbreviations

Primary Sources: Bible Texts, and Ancient Texts



Hebrew Bible/Mishnah/Talmud

1–2 Chr 1–2 Chronicles 1–2 Kgs 1–2 Kings 1–2 Sam 1–2 Samuel Dan Daniel Dt Deuteronomy Eccl (or Qoh) Ecclesiastes (or Qoheleth) Esth Esther Ex Exodus Ezek Ezekiel Gen Genesis Hab Habakkuk Hos Hoshea Isa Isaiah Jer Jeremiah Jl Joel Josh Joshua Lam Lamentations Lev Leviticus Mal Malachi Nah Nahum Neh Nehemiah Num Numbers Prov Proverbs Ps Psalms Zech Zechariah m. Mishnah b. Babylonian Talmud y. Jerusalem Talmud t. Tosefta ʿAbod. Zar. Aboda Zarah ʾAbot R. Nat. Abot de Rabbi Nathan B. Bat Bava Batra B. Meẓ. Bava Meẓi’a Ber. Berakhot

Abbreviations Git. Gittin Ḥag. Ḥagigah Hor. Horayot Ḥul. Ḥullin Kelim, B. Qam. Kelim, Bava Qamma Meg. Megillah Menaḥ. Menaḥot Mid. Middot Ned. Nedarim Pesaḥ. Pesaḥim Qidd. Qiddushin Šabb. Shabbot Sanh. Sanhedrin Sukk. Sukkah Tanḥ. Tanḥuma



New Testament, Philo, Deuterocanonical works, Pseudepigrapha, Midrash, and Targums

Mt Matthew Lk Luke Jn John Heb Hebrews 1–2 Cor 1–2 Corinthians Col Colossians Rev Revelation Gos. Tr. The Gospel of Truth Gos. Thom The Gospel of Thomas Origen: Princ. De Principiis Irenaeus: Adv. Haer. Adversus haereses Philo: Agr. Agriculture Cher. Cherubim Conf. De confusione lin-guarum Det. Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat Decal. De decalogo Ebr. De ebrietate Fug. De fuga et inventione Gig. De gigantibus Her. Quis rerum divinar-um heres sit Migr. De migratione Abrahami Leg. I, II, III Legum allegoriae I, II, III

xv

xvi

Abbreviations

Vita Mosis I, II Mos. I, II Opif. De Opificio Mundi Plant. De plantatione Post. De posteritate Caini Praem. De praemiis et poe-nis QG 1, 2, 3, 4 Quaestiones et solu-tiones in Genesin I, II, III, IV QE 1, 2 Quaestiones et solu-tiones in Exodum I, II Sacr. De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini Somn. De somniis I, II Virt. De virtutibus 1–2 Esd 1–2 Esdras 1 Macc 1 Maccabees Sir Sirach Wis Wisdom of Solo-mon Bar Baruch Jub. Jubilees Josephus: Ant. Antiquities of the Jews 1 En. 1 Enoch (Ethiopic Apocalypse) 2 Enoch (Slavonic Apocalypse) 2 En. 3 En. 3 Enoch (Hebrew Apocalypse) Gen. Rab. Genesis Rabbah Pesiq. Rab. Pesiqta Rabbati Lev. Rab. Leviticus Rabbah Num. Rab. Numbers Rabbah Tg. Onq. Targum Onqelos Tg. Ps.-J. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Tg. Neof. Targum Neofiti Frg. Tg Fragmentary Targum LXX The Septuagint



Journals, References Works, Series

AGAJU AJS Review ANRW CBQ CBQMS BNTC

Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des Urchristentums Association for Jewish Studies Review Aufstieg und Niedergang der römischen Welt Catholic Biblical Quarterly Catholic Biblical Quarterly Monograph Series Black’s New Testament Commentaries

Abbreviations

xvii

Dead Sea Discoveries DSD DJD Discoveries in the Judaean Desert EJJS European Journal of Jewish Studies HTR Harvard Theological Review HUCA Hebrew Union College Annual JANER Journal of Ancient Near Eastern Religions JANESCU Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University JBL Journal of Biblical Literature JGRChJ Journal of Greco-Roman Christianity and Judaism JQR Jewish Quarterly Review JSJ  Journal for the Study of Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic, and Roman Periods JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament JSOTSup Journal for the Study of the Old Testament Supplement Series JSP Journal of Scholarly Publishing JSQ Jewish Studies Quarterly JR Journal of Religion JECS Journal of Early Christian Studies Journal of Jewish Studies JJS LCL Loeb Classical Library NT Novum Testamentum NTS New Testament Studies ResQ Restoration Quarterly SBL Society of Biblical Literature SUNT Studien zur Umwelt des Neuen Testaments VT Vetus Testamentum ZAW Zeitschrift für die alttestamentliche Wissenschaft

Introduction 1

Originality, Significance and Critical Implications of This Research

This dissertation seeks to investigate the religious phenomenon of the Torah as a mediator between God and human beings. In particular, it will examine images of the Torah as angelic, messianic and God-like in early Jewish and Christian sources from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Additionally, the study investigates these images of Torah as they are manifest in the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions, with the aim of discovering the ancient roots of the medieval conceptions in the Second Temple and rabbinic-period material. In so doing, it provides a phenomenological analysis of the fundamental elements and meanings of each of the images of Torah as they are understood by medieval Jewish philosophers and Jewish mystics. By following Moshe Idel’s panoramic approach towards the history of ideas, this study presents an innovative way of depicting a clearer picture of the development of the religious phenomena of these images of Torah as they appear in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. In keeping with Idel’s research, which reconstructs a history of ideas that connects ancient and medieval Jewish sources and views, the significant implication of this study is that there is continuity between the images of Torah in ancient sources, on the one hand, and in medieval Jewish mysticism and philosophy on the other. I will examine the images of Torah from three vantage points: 1) the manner in which these images reflect the Torah’s role as a mediator between God and human beings; 2) the manner in which they relate to varying conception of devekut, i.e., communion or union with God; 3) the manner in which they are employed in the two different traditions: Jewish mystical and philosophical. In so doing, I will explore the concept of a mediator connecting God and human beings as it relates to Torah’s images, as well as the way this mediator functions in the experience of devekut. This study also offers critical evidence for specific instances of the intertextual and exegetical nexuses of the hypostatic notions of Torah, as well as for a more comprehensive blueprint of the developmental process of images of Torah. Furthermore, this study illuminates not only the theological and phenomenological relationships between the three images of Torah but also their implications in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions as they emerged from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages.

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_002

2 2

Introduction

Statement of Problem, Current Research and Critical Questions

The dynamic interactions between God and human beings are crucial religious phenomena in many late antique religions. Exegetical, religious, philosophical, and mystical factors were intertwined in these dynamic interactions as were religious phenomena such as the personification of gods and deification of human beings. These phenomena produced various images of deities, and a substantial variety of types of relationships between God and human beings. Of particular significance was the concept of a mediator between God and human beings, which implies a critical attempt to narrow the distance between them. Certain concepts and images of the Torah as a mediator emerged out of philosophical and theological interactions between Jewish and Hellenistic traditions in the Second Temple Period. The images of Torah explicitly appear as hypostatic notions,1 such as Wisdom, Logos, memra, and shekhinah, which are found in early Jewish and Christian sources. Interestingly, these hypostatic notions are profoundly connected to various biblical, philosophical, and mystical concepts of Torah. This informs the way the hypostatic notions function as mediators, as they also appear recurrently as three images of Torah: angelic, God-like, and messianic. In this context, critical evidence of two distinct traditions within ancient Jewish thought can be detected: a philosophical tradition centered on Greek Logos and a mystical tradition centered on Jewish Wisdom. On the one hand, the idea of Greek Logos, which is first presented as part of the cosmic process by the pre-Socratic Greek philosopher Heraclitus (535–475 BCE), appears in Philo of Alexandria’s conception of the Logos as the intermediary between God and the cosmos. This idea of Greek Logos appears to convey an external and revealed function (e.g., speech), thereby leading to the development of a philosophical tradition that features some Jewish hypostatic notions, such as 1 The origin and concept of hypostasis appears in Plotinus’s hierarchical system. A hypostasis, which basically stands for substance or essence in metaphysics, is described as the Intellect generated by the One. See Pauliina Remes, “Neoplatonism,” Ancient Philosophies 4 (Stocksfield, England: Acumen, 2008), 48–52. For Plotinus, the term hypostasis expresses immaterial and independent “entities” or higher spiritual “principles” of varying levels of existence. See also Plotinus, Enneads (Greek), trans. Arthur H. Armstrong (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), I. 1.8.9–10; III. 8.9; V. 1.6.37–9; V. 3.13.1–6; V. 4.1; VI. 8.20.9–16; VI. 9.1.1–4. In a manner similar to the Neoplatonic concept of the Intellect as a hypostasis, there are the supposed forms of the hypostatic notions, such as Torah, Wisdom, Logos, memra, and shekhinah, which mainly appear in the Jewish and Christian sources during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, as well as the Active Intellect and the sefirot as the hypostatic entities that emerge from the One or Ein Sof, i.e., God, which mainly appear in the Middle Ages.

Introduction

3

Philo’s Logos and memra in Second Temple Jewish and rabbinic sources, as well as the Incarnate Logos of the Johannine Gospel in early Christianity. Additionally, the idea of Logos appears to be identified with the idea of the Active Intellect, a cosmological mediator between God and human beings, which is prominent in the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition. The concept of the mediator illuminates the religious and mystical experiences, and allows for the idea of devekut, the noetic transformation or union between the human intellect and the Active Intellect. On the other hand, the idea of Jewish Wisdom appears in the Book of Proverbs, which sets forth two types of wisdom, practical wisdom as reflected throughout the text, and personified Wisdom as reflected in the hypostatic conception found in Prov 8:22–31. In particular, the idea of Jewish Wisdom appears to have an internal and hidden function (e.g., idea), which significantly leads to the development of a mystical tradition, by offering a conceptual framework for the emergence of the notion of an inner or spiritual realization. This idea of Jewish Wisdom appears to be identified with some Jewish hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom which was with God before creation, preexistent Torah, shekhinah in Second Temple Jewish and rabbinic sources, and as Jesus in the Synoptics of the early Christian tradition. In addition, the idea of Wisdom appears to be profoundly related to the idea of the sefirot as kabbalistic symbols, which elucidate an inner divine system, and function as invisible and hidden mediators that connect God and human beings, in the medieval kabbalistic tradition. The idea of Wisdom as a hidden mediator plays a vital role in elucidating the ideal of devekut understood as unio mystica, which means a complete union of the human soul with the sefirot and God. The interrelationships between the ideas of the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom in relation to the hypostatic notions became the critical object of constant and energetic discussion and has remained such in contemporary Judaism and Christianity. It is notable that two prominent scholars of Jewish mysticism, Gershom Scholem and Moshe Idel both examined the philosophical and mystical concepts and images of Torah manifest in the hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom and Logos, by tracing the history of ideas connecting ancient and medieval Jewish sources and concepts. Their constructions of a history of ideas of the ancient roots of significantly later traditions reveals possible associations between ancient and medieval traditions as they relate to the images of Torah. Both Scholem in Origins of The Kabbalah (Ursprung und Anfänge der Kabbala, 1962) and Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941), and Idel in Kabbalah: New Perspectives (1988), view the history of Jewish mysticism as a necessary component of their studies. However, Idel’s methodology is less concerned with integrating social and intellectual history than it

4

Introduction

is with focusing on structures of experiences, mystical techniques, and the relationship between theurgical practices and Jewish esotericism. This allows him to trace the associations and structures from antiquity through early kabbalah even in the absence of clear historical points of contact. Idel depicts the inherent connections between ideas which form the inner structure of Jewish mysticism, while formulating a phenomenology of the traditions of Jewish mysticism, which concentrates on the study of experience, a topic that is lacking in previous scholarship. Following this logic, Idel hypothesizes that there is an inner history and a pre-history of kabbalah which can be observed in the recurring patterns that appear in various corpuses of Jewish esotericism. In Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (2008), Idel places particular value on religious experience, while emphasizing that symbols are identified, created, and utilized by the mystic as an invitation to experience the divine  – something that occurs through the mystical interpretation of the Torah, which connects God and human beings. For Scholem, symbols are just an alternative for that which cannot be expressed in human language, while for Idel, symbols transform language into the interlocked code that mediates religious experience and hermeneutics. In Idel’s view, Scholem overemphasizes the doctrinal aspect of theosophic kabbalah, which is based on the historical presentation of ideas and functions. In line with his focus on doctrine over experience, Scholem emphasizes the influences and centrality of Gnostic myths in evaluating various mythic aspects appearing in rabbinic and medieval kabbalistic texts. By contrast, Idel assumes a qualitative distinction between Gnostic mythic aspects and rabbinic and kabbalistic ones. He particularly values the experiential aspect, while tracing the existence of internal channels transmitting the phenomenological ideas (e.g., the images of Torah, and the ideas of devekut and unio mystica) based on religious experience, which develop from within ancient Jewish mystical roots and extend through the medieval kabbalistic traditions. By this logic, Idel further tries to reconstruct a more comprehensive system, which conveys the doctrinal and experiential aspects based on a linguistic and kabbalistic symbolism. This system appreciates the reoccurrence of various ideas that contain older and newer patterns and structures, among various sources (e.g., philosophical, rabbinic, and kabbalistic sources) throughout this history of Jewish thought. In this context, Idel proposes a panoramic approach, which synthesizes the various interactions between different traditions through the investigation of the full range of textual resources from the ancient, medieval, and post-medieval sources. This panoramic approach allows for additional analyses and comparisons in order to attain a holistic appreciation of the history of ideas from the

Introduction

5

texts of Jewish mysticism. In this sense, this approach is primarily based on an ahistorical perspective, which places more emphasis on reconstructing holistically the experiential aspects in the development of Jewish thought, than on tracing the historical development of one tradition. Nonetheless, Idel tries to discover, in a historical fashion, the links between the conceptual structures of medieval Jewish mystical and philosophical traditions and sources from antiquity. In this vein, Idel appears to offer an authentic Jewish phenomenology from within by following a methodological eclecticism while simultaneously tracking the history of ideas in the Jewish mystical and esoteric traditions. Following Idel’s phenomenological methodology, in this dissertation, I propose to show a concrete example which clearly illustrates more the phenomenological associations between the images of Torah in Second Temple Judaism and those in medieval Judaism. In particular, the purpose of the study is to present a new model of the development of and interaction between the images of Torah (as angelic, God-like, and messianic) between God and human beings, as mediated by the idea of devekut. As noted, these images of the Torah are prominently found in ancient Jewish sources that describe Wisdom and Greek sources that describe Logos. Thus, this study emphasizes the relationship and connectivity between ancient Jewish, Greek, and Christian thought, on the one hand, and medieval Jewish mysticism and Jewish philosophy on the other. This study particularly provides important evidence of specific instances of the dynamic interactions of the images of Torah in the two traditions: Jewish mystical and philosophical traditions from the Second Temple period to the Middle Ages. Furthermore, it will contribute to the understanding of Jewish religious phenomena, providing a wider history of Jewish ideas related to Torah’s images in a broader phenomenological perspective. The results will not only suggest the importance of a further phenomenological examination of the ongoing developmental process of Torah’s images in relation to the idea of devekut but will also encourage a philosophical and theological rediscovery of the existence of similar phenomena in Judaism and Christianity through a detailed reconsideration of their relationship to Torah’s images. 3

Research Methodology: Grounding in Moshe Idel’s Panoramic Approach

3.1 Idel’s Phenomenology: Models and Panoramic Approach In order to trace the history and continuity of the religious phenomena of the three (angelic, God-like, and messianic) images of Torah, which were dynamically developed from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages,

6

Introduction

I will employ Idel’s panoramic approach, which reconstructs a history of shared ideas that were manifest and developed in ancient and medieval Jewish sources. It is notable that Idel retraces the history of ideas which appear in the Jewish mystical traditions by reappraising various critical problems created by Scholem’s chronological research of kabbalah.2 Idel, in Kabbalah: New Perspectives (KNP), tries to clarify terms, including “history (of religion),” “(Jewish) mysticism,” and “(religious) experience” that were used by Scholem in Origins of The Kabbalah (1962) and Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism (1941).3 Scholem’s approach integrates the history of ideas into the historical platform of social and intellectual movements and organizes the major concepts and themes in the history of Jewish mysticism.4 Scholem prioritizes historical or diachronic research for the emergence of particular traditions or models, by historically arranging various traditions into the major trends of Jewish mysticism.5 By this logic, Scholem appears to define in a limited fashion the kabbalah as a traditional term for Jewish mysticism, esotericism, and its teachings since the early Middle Ages (i.e., around the twelfth century). Unlike Scholem’s historical approach, Idel places more emphasis on reconstructing the experiential aspects of the history of Jewish mysticism, while uncovering new historical connections that the historical approach misses.6 In this vein, Idel emphasizes inquiry into the various manifestations of spiritual and religious phenomena based on experience, such as devekut, theurgy, and magic, within the entire Jewish mystical corpus from antiquity to the post-medieval periods.7 Idel thereby underlines the necessity of investigating various traditions and schools of kabbalah, which appear in the vast corpus of writings that emerge from “elaborate bodies of mystical thought” reflecting 2 Moshe Idel, “Subversive Catalysts: Gnosticism and Messianism in Gershom Scholem’s View of Jewish Mysticism,” in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians, ed. D. Myers and D. Ruderman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998), 39–76. 3 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives (1988; repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990), 1–29. Gershom Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, ed. R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, trans. Allan Arkush (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987), 1–3; idem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 3rd rev. ed. (New York: Schocken Books, 1961), 1–39. For Scholem, history and (Jewish) mysticism are inseparable, and Jewish mysticism is essentially involved with the history of religion. 4 Scholem, Major Trends, 1–39, 244–48. For instance, he studies the relationship of the Expulsion from Spain to the emergence of messianism. 5 In Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, Scholem’s historiography catalogues the doctrines and philosophical principles that can be gleaned from the mystical writings. 6 Idel, “Introduction,” in Messianic Movements in Israel, ed. Aharon Z. Eshkoli (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1987), 9–28. 7 Daniel Abrams, “Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism: Moshe Idel’s Methodology in Perspective,” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 20.215 (2009): 81.

Introduction

7

“comprehensive approaches rather than brief insights or remarks.”8 In KNP, Idel thereby concretizes his theory of phenomenology by elaborating on two senses of phenomenology in order to present an overview that explicates various issues regarding religious phenomena significant to the modern scholars. The first sense of phenomenology addresses “these multi-faceted aspects” within various traditions in the history of Jewish thought, while rejecting “a particular narrative that organizes them as a history.”9 Along these lines, Idel elucidates the first sense of phenomenology in his later study, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Phenomenological approaches consist of attempts to extrapolate from religious documents the specifically religious categories that organize major religious discourses. Derived from a certain extent from the philosophical approach of Edmund Husserl, particularly the need to bracket one’s own presuppositions in order to allow an encounter with the phenomenon, these are the most non-reductionist of approaches, since they do not presuppose that a theological, historical, or psychological structure is reflected in the religious documents.10 This implies that it is significant to cross-examine various religious sources from a phenomenological perspective. Insofar as he uses the term “model” in his early works, he appears to understand it as a particular idea or a recurring impression in interpreting religious systems of thought and phenomena.11 He suggests oscillating between the various types and cases of models, so as to avoid misperceptions and generalizations.12 Idel reifies his theory of models in his later works, such as golem. The nature of models in golem appears to be critical not only for capturing the inner dynamics of religious life and literature from various traditions but also for examining

8 Ibid., 21, 33. 9 Idel, KNP, 30. 10 Idel, Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders (Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005), 7–8. 11 Idel, KNP, xvii, 268. 12 Ibid. Jonathan Garb also appreciates the use of models for creating an imaginative perspective connecting existing disciplines with new questions and implications, although he warns of a methodology of models, which can cause “an unnecessary mediation as artificial constructs between the scholar and the readers of the text” in the study of kabbalah. See Garb, Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism: From Rabbinic Literature to Safedian Kabbalah (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2005), 62–63.

8

Introduction

the object of study in a scientifically accurate manner.13 The advanced theory of models therefore appears to be helpful in evaluating various traditions insofar as it captures recurring ideas in the religious phenomena. Idel thereby appears to actively utilize the models as building blocks, which contain a multiplicity of approaches and meanings, and allow for more specific categorization within a larger program of phenomenology.14 As Daniel Abrams notes, Idel’s advanced theory of models not only preserves the epistemic values of models which can claim a degree of accuracy in approximating the object of study but also apprehends the inner dynamics of religious experiences.15 By this logic, Idel concretizes the second sense of phenomenology, which emphasizes “the subjective impression of the scholar of Jewish mysticism in assessing the main themes and character of the unsystematic presentations of traditions in various periods which conceal a deeper organization of ideas.”16 The subjective impression particularly appreciates the concept of “perspectivism,” which can analyze an inherent structure of an experience. Perspectivism is primarily grounded in the concept of “a distanciation” involved with “a serious acquaintance with other religious systems and the possibility to address it from the perspective of another culture.”17 The subjective impressions based on perspectivism thereby allow for scholars not only to appreciate a unique pattern of thought found in a text but also to identify various traditions (or models), which emerge from the texts themselves.18 The conception of models formulated by contemporary scholars has a tendency not only to reify an element found prominently in the texts but also to extend to other texts that have some resemblance to these elements.19 In this sense, Idel further elaborates the concept of a structure of ideas, which can be detected by subjective 13 Idel, Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990), xv–xxx. 14 Idel, “Subversive Catalysts,” 39–76. 15 Abrams, “Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism,” 82–83. 16 Idel, KNP, 34–35. Through tracking the development of the terms in relation to their various meanings within historical and literary contexts, Idel provides “a typology of religious or mystical phenomena which serve the scholar in appreciating models.” 17 Idel, Ascension on High, 11–13. Idel, however, notes that “This distanciation should not mean a total adherence to ‘alien’ structures, as occurs in the application of various forms of psychology … but rather the use of a flexible approach that is capable of modifying the analysis of Kabbalah … Methods – perspectivism included – are no more absolute than their objects or subjects” (13). 18 Idel, KNP, 26, 28, 34–35. Idel’s second sense of phenomenology is qualitatively different from the standard perspective of the modern scholars. 19 Idel, “On the Meanings of the Term Kabbalah – Between the Ecstatic and the Sefirotic Schools of Kabbalah in the 13th Century,” Peʿamim 93 (2002): 41 (Hebrew).

Introduction

9

impressions, and are an element in the models. By this logic, Idel’s more sophisticated theory of models recognizes the hermeneutic independence of the ancient, medieval, and modern interpretations, and simultaneously the discrepancy between them. This implies that models presuppose an inner structure in which there are intrinsic connections between religious ideas and practices, which latently existed in ancient sources, and the inner structure thereby can be found through a historical reconstruction of thoughts and experiences of the kabbalists and modern scholars. The ideas of devekut and unio mystica in relation to the images of Torah, which I will examine in this study, can, therefore, be categorized as one of the inner structures, which is constituted as a building block of models, and connects the concepts of human beings and God. In this context, Idel constructs an ideational model which can uncover the inner structures.20 The ideational models particularly scrutinize the creative imagination (of the kabbalists), which atomizes (i.e., reconfigures, remythologizes, and reinterprets) the texts, and creates a new meaning and function for earlier ideas.21 In this sense, while analyzing the religious phenomena in their natural states, Idel necessitates a functional implementation of models as “approximations” that are contrived and operated by the scholars’ systems and works.22 By this logic, Idel further elaborates the recurring patterns and orders of thought in the models, which play a critical role in determining the structure of ideas (in the models) within various traditions in the phenomenology of Jewish mysticism.23 Abrams, explaining Idel’s position, epitomizes the two purposes of models: 1) to discern “semantic structures that can be useful in examining through large amounts of material in order to identify the main moves and relationships between religious rites, experiences and traditions”; 2) to uncover the “unique program of study” presented “in kabbalistic 20 Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994), 23–24. Idel warns that in this sense the structure can be a preconceived structure, which can be imposed onto the process of observing the phenomena. Idel further explains the two senses of the structure by making a qualitative distinction: 1) “creativity of the scholar in building a system of ideas negotiates meaning for the reader within the context of modern scholarship and the historiography of ancient practices and thought”; 2) “apologetic of the modern times which only nominally intervene in the natural structures that were functioning within the religious systems.” 21 Idel, “Kabbalah, Hieroglyphicity and Hieroglyphs,” Kabbalah 11 (2004): 11–47; idem, Absorbing Perfections, 58, 79, 225, 436. 22 Abrams, op. cit., 46–47. 23 Idel, “On Some Forms of Order in Kabbalah,” Daʿat 50–52 (2003), xxxi–lviii. Idel notes that “Models are more comprehensive patterns, whose structure, or order, signifies ideals and models of activities” (xxiv).

10

Introduction

scholarship in analyzing the materials differently from his predecessors and thereby shifting the agenda of its study.”24 In this sense, as Abrams notes, Idel’s phenomenology of models appears as “the model(s) of models,” i.e., “simulation models,” which can help readers independently analyze and evaluate additional primary sources in the study of other different models.25 This protects the scholars from hermeneutically and ideologically being confined to one model, while encouraging them to produce continuously new and various models. For instance, Idel exemplifies a new model of “sonship” by analyzing the various categories and interpretations from the ancient Jewish and rabbinic perspectives and exegeses which lack a “theological or systematic-orientated mind” in terms of a dynamic (“panoramic” or “clustered”) approach.26 I thereby suggest a dynamic approach to the history of Jewish mysticism, one that assumes a multiplicity of separate developments and cross-currents, and recognizes the importance of tensions, frictions, even sharp antagonisms and, more rarely, syntheses between these vectors, rather than a theological approach that finds the defining moments of religion or mysticism in static concepts. This dynamic, or panoramic, approach assumes a necessity of additional analyses of the traditions according to other possible models even after the historical, thematic, and phenomenological investigations have been exhausted. This approach embraces the benefits of models, which reify prominent elements (i.e., structures, patterns, and orders) from the texts, and extends them to other similar texts through the cross-examinations of various traditions and subjective scholarly impressions.27 It also encompasses history and experience, 24 Idel, KNP, 17–34; Abrams, op. cit., 82. For Idel, the purpose of the model is to synthesize different traditions based on the structures, patterns, and orders of ideas. He uses this synthesis to produce a new model or system, which does not ostensibly exist in the texts, but results from the analysis and estimation of the relationships between various data. 25 Abrams, op. cit., 82–83. 26 Idel, Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism (London: Continuum; Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2007), 4, 616–18. This means that Idel develops his theory of models into a panoramic approach, in terms of the variety of phenomenological approaches to models. 27 Ibid., 10–11. Abrams (24) notes that Idel’s phenomenology of models functions as scholarly impressions or “intuition” of recurring structures, patterns, and orders of thought, and of themes (or myths) from having studies the various texts. This approach not only allows for comparisons and interactions between different models but is also helpful for a scholarly analysis which attempt to understand and synthesize the various models into a larger and more cohesive system that absorbs various structures, patterns, and orders of thought. See also Abrams, op. cit., 66, 82, 87, 90.

Introduction

11

while establishing the historical connections between ancient, rabbinic, and kabbalistic traditions. Above all, this approach formulates a more comprehensive theory of models that consist of structures of thinking and practice in kabbalah throughout the trajectories of the history of Jewish mysticism. Through this panoramic approach, Idel develops his phenomenology of Jewish mysticism into a more sophisticated methodology for appreciating the complex reoccurrence and interaction of history, ideas, traditions, and religious practices.28 For instance, in Messianic Mystics, his theory of messianism as a model demonstrates the interface between the key concepts of the history, experience, and phenomenology of Jewish mysticism.29 Idel elaborates the notion of messianism as a model, which reflects a historical and phenomenological continuity between its biblical and rabbinic articulations and the subsequent discourses, and continuously recurred, in various permutations, through the interaction and development of Jewish messianism and mysticism. Idel thereby allows for the model of messianism to be placed within a wider system of the Jewish mystical traditions while securing the distinctions between various traditions necessary to construct a broader history of kabbalah.30 Specifically, Idel concretizes his panoramic approach to the models of kabbalah by placing Abulafia’s ecstatic kabbalah at the center of his phenomenology of Jewish mysticism, as a correction to Scholem’s approach to kabbalah.31 By contrast, Scholem overemphasizes the doctrinal aspect of theosophic kabbalah and places ecstatic kabbalah within the limits of the history of theosophic kabbalah.32 Scholem focuses on discovering the major concepts and themes in the study of Jewish mysticism, especially focusing the development of theosophic kabbalah in accordance with the continuity of a history of socio-political movements. This approach is found in many places in his work and is particularly clear in two volumes, On Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (1965) and On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead (1991).33 Scholem thereby understands the ecstatic kabbalah as a deviation from the theosophic kabbalah formulated by the medieval kabbalists in the Middle Ages, rather than as an 28 Abrams, op. cit., 40. 29 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 61–65. For instance, Abulafia’s synthesis of messianism and prophecy alludes to a new model of phenomenological innovation in Jewish mysticism. 30 Ibid., 35–57. 31 Ibid., 35–37, 97–100. 32 Scholem, Major Trends, 119–55. 33 Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New York: Schocken Books, 1965); Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah, trans. Joachim Neugroschel, ed. Jonathan Chipman (New York: Schocken Books, 1991).

12

Introduction

approach with its own integrity. In contrast, Idel denies the centrality of theosophic kabbalah, while investigating the different structures of ideas, which are significant within the forms of theosophic kabbalah and the dynamic phenomena of thirteenth century kabbalah.34 As Abrams notes, Idel specifically highlights the rise of the individual, Abraham Abulafia, in the thirteenth century, which brought out “innovation and creativity with the effects of mobility, literary revisions, and the decline of named and geographic authorities” in kabbalistic thought.35 Strikingly, Abulafia’s experiential focus clarifies a clear distinction between two schools in the thirteenth century kabbalah in terms of the phenomenology of models. It also clarifies the significant influence of the Abulafian approach on the structure of thought of subsequent figures, such as R. Joseph Gikatilla.36 Idel’s methodological assumption of “a diversity of kabbalistic interpretative levels” describes “one of the major catalysts for the vigorous development of both theosophical and ecstatic kabbalah in the last quarter of the thirteenth century.”37 In addition to theosophic-theurgic and ecstatic-mystical model, Idel analyzes a magical-talismanic kabbalah as a model, which can be identified within the history of kabbalistic thought and literature.38 This, expansion to various models and traditions, is a prime example of the panoramic approach. Idel, thus, extends the phenomenology of two schools (a mystical-ecstatic model and theosophic-theurgic model) of kabbalah in the thirteenth century into three models of kabbalah: mystical-ecstatic model, theosophic-theurgic model and magical-talismanic model.39 Idel further constructs a broader system 34 Idel, “The Contribution of Abraham Abulafia’s Kabbalah to the Understanding of Jewish Mysticism,” in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After: Pro­ ceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, ed. Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 119. Idel also analyzes the phenomenon of multiple versions of kabbalistic works amongst theosophic kabbalists in the thirteenth century, all while emphasizing the literary, exegetical, and theological difference between the two schools. 35 Abrams, op. cit., 53. Abulafia serves as not only an active contributor within the develop­ ment of mystical experiences of the divine but also as a catalyst to motivate a new system through the reordering and recombination of ideas and practices. See Idel, Messianic Mystics, 70–71. 36 Idel, “Historical Introduction,” in Joseph Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Orah: Gates of Light, trans. Avi Weinstein (San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994), xxviii. 37 Ibid., xxx. 38 Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, 18; idem, Kabbalah and Eros (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005), 214–21. As Abrams, op. cit., 42–44, notes, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic is a more mature formulation of the impressions categorized in KNP. 39 Idel, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance” in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century, ed. B. Cooperman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard

Introduction

13

which can encompass other subdivisions within the three models of kabbalah. He thereby asserts the necessity of a further reconstruction of ideas in order to not only substantiate the relationship between ancient (Second Temple) materials, rabbinic materials, and kabbalistic literature and its interpretations, but to also uncover their appropriate explanations through embracing their distinctive perspectives: Undoubtedly, I have used texts from a variety of sources, which belong to different corpora: the Hekhalot literature, midrashic-Talmudic literature, Pseudepigrapha, German Pietism and forms of Ashkenazi esotericism, Kabbalistic literature of various types, – Jewish and Christian – and at times even late Hasidic texts. Despite the great differences in the character of these sources, it is necessary to use them in order to complete the picture of ancient Jewish conceptualizations which were suppressed and whose fragments have been scattered. Even though there appears to be no organic connection between these sources, in my view, there is such a connection, despite everything. These genres are the extensions of early Jewish thought, which reached various corpora in different forms … Therefore, the reconstruction of ideas that exist behind the texts is not just a matter of calling up anew the thought patterns that have already been formulated and written about in lost works, but is also necessary when reconstructing concepts that were not explicitly expressed in antiquity.40 In this sense, Idel tries to trace and analyze ignored or hidden texts within various traditions in the development of Jewish mysticism. He thereby builds his own theory of models, identifying the existence of a primitive form of the medieval theosophic doctrines, which already appeared as various theological and philosophical ideas intertwined in ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic sources. In this vein, Idel’s ahistorical approach places more emphasis on reconstructing experiential aspects, which nevertheless allows for the discovery of new historical understanding missed by the traditional historical approach.41 This approach acknowledges not only the hermeneutic independence and University Press, 1983), 186–242. In this study, Idel explores the function of language as talismanic vessels that could draw down the divine efflux, while examining similarities and differences with other models throughout the history of Jewish mysticism. 40 Idel, The Angelic World: Apotheosis and Theophany (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Miskal-Yedioth Ahronot, 2008), 149–51. This is quoted from Abrams’ translation of the original Hebrew. See Abrams, op. cit., 39–40. 41 Abrams, op. cit., 145–46.

14

Introduction

internal integrity of the experiential and theoretical aspects of the ancient, medieval and modern interpretations, but also simultaneously supports “the cross-fertilization of traditions.”42 Idel argues that kabbalah emerged from within ancient, rabbinic, and medieval Jewish mystical sources on the basis of its affinity to the ideas and innovative orientations of these sources, rather than the result of the intrusion of Gnosticism into Jewish esoteric circles.43 However, I am partially in agreement with Idel’s rejection against Scholem’s theory of the Gnostic influences, since there appears explicit evidence of the interrelationships and interactions between Philonic, rabbinic, Gnostic, and Samaritan literature, as well as early Christian literature in terms of a mythic and mystical tradition regarding the hypostatic mediators during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods.44 Nonetheless, I strongly support for Idel’s 42 Idel, “Orienting, Orientalizing or Disorienting the Study of Kabbalah: ‘An Almost Absolutely Unique’ Case of Occidentalism,” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 2 (1997): 13–47; Abrams, op. cit., 39, 70–71, 78. 43 Idel, KNP, 6, 21, 33. Heinrich Graetz tries to prove the origin of the kabbalah as a reaction against the radical rationalism of Maimonides, while David Newmark finds the origin of kabbalah in an “internal dialectic” in the development of philosophical ideas within Judaism. See Graetz, Geschichte Der Juden Von Den ältesten Zeiten Bis Auf Die Gegenwart, Aus Den Quellen Neu Bearb (Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1897–1911), 385–402; David Neumark, Geschichte Der Jüdischen Philosophie Des Mittelalters (Berlin: G. Reimer, 1907), 179–236. Scholem, in contrast to Graetz and Neumark, proposed a historical approach to the origins of kabbalah from an external source, i.e., Gnosticism. See Scholem, Major Trends, 52–3; idem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism, and Talmudic Tradition, 14–19. By this logic, he refuses a philological and historical nexus between ancient Jewish mystical and the kabbalistic concepts. In this sense, he does not accept Samuel Belkin’s thesis of a philological nexus between Philo and the kabbalistic sources. See Samuel Belkin, “Philo and the Zohar,” JJS 10 (1959): 23–44, 113–35. I am generally in agreement with Idel’s position regarding the connectivity between ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic ideas and the kabbalistic ideas. However, I do not reject to some extent the Gnostic affinity with the kabbalistic ideas, as I described in this examination, I then do not exclude the early Jewish and Christian Gnostic sources from a broader phenomenological perspective, while discovering their relationships with ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic ideas and the kabbalistic ideas despite the lack of their philological and historical relationships. 44 Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, WUZNT 36 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985); idem, “Gen. 1, 26 and 2, 7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,” JSJ 16.2 (1985): 202–39; Charles H. Talbert, “The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity,” in The Development of Christology during the First Hundred Years, and Other Essays on Early Christian Christology (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 83–112; George W. MacRae, “The Jewish Background of the Gnostic Sophia Myth,” NT 12.2 (1970): 86–101. As scholars such as Fossum, Talbert, and MacRae, examined, it becomes clear that the mythological features of Hellenistic Judaism show a profound interaction with the early Christian Gnostic myth, such as a descending-ascending redeemer that convey both the angelic and divine-like images of the hypostatic mediators, such as Wisdom and

Introduction

15

investigation, tracing historically and phenomenologically the internal continuity of ancient mythic and mystical ideas within Jewish mystical traditions, which can be detected from antiquity through post-medieval kabbalistic literature. Idel, by pursuing “methodological eclecticism,” invites “various new perspectives to the study of Jewish esotericism and mystical phenomena,” which were excluded from previous studies of kabbalah, while rejecting the impacts of “political, hermeneutic or religious” ideologies.45 Idel delves into the kabbalistic treatment of rabbinic thought and sources, which allows him to offer not only a textual map of the subterranean traditions connected to the midrashim but also serves as a prerequisite for the analysis of the large corpus of rabbinic traditions. In order to prove the existence of hidden channels of ideas and traditions (or models) in the history of Jewish mysticism, Idel tries to reconstruct a new history of myths from the medieval kabbalistic perspective effectively assuming that medieval kabbalists are correct to view the authenticity of their traditions, which demonstrate the mythologization of ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic ideas.46 Idel uses a method of inquiry that takes into account the literary and cultural context of the ancient and rabbinic texts and the mystical aspects of rabbinic sources.47 Idel’s critical article, “Rabbinism and kabbalism: On G. Scholem’s Phenomenology of Judaism” (1991), investigates the relationship of rabbinic literature to kabbalistic literature while identifying the hidden myths and mythic aspects of ancient and rabbinic and targumic sources from within medieval kabbalistic sources.48 For instance, to uncover rabbinic and midrashic traditions he studies the works (e.g., a unique literary form of commentaries to rabbinic Logos manifest throughout the history of Jewish mystical thought, which I will examine later in this study. 45 Abrams, op. cit., 10, 39–42, 71. 46 Idel, Kabbalah and Eros, 28–29; Abrams, op. cit., 38. While I basically agree with Idel’s approach, I, in this dissertation, will focus on examining the phenomenological features of the images of Torah by investigating a wide range of various religious traditions, including even the Jewish and Christian Gnostic traditions, throughout the history of Jewish and Christian thought, rather than focusing solely on elucidating the missing historical connections from ancient rabbinic and Jewish mystical traditions. 47 Idel emphasizes the relationship between the rabbinic and the mystical attitudes by explaining the mystical aspects of the Torah, which appear in writings of rabbinic figures. See Idel, “Torah: Between Presence and Representation of the Divine in Jewish Mysticism,” 201. 48 Idel, “Rabbinism versus Kabbalism: On G. Scholem’s Phenomenology of Judaism,” Modern Judaism 11.3 (1991): 281–96. Idel’s study, by opposing Scholem’s historical thesis regarding the possible influences and interactions of the sources, has significant implications for the positions of rabbinism and kabbalism within the history and phenomenology of Jewish mysticism.

16

Introduction

aggadot) of Geronese kabbalists, such as R. Ezra and R. Azriel, and the works of the Castilian kabbalists, such as R. Moses de Leon, R. Joseph Gikatilla.49 These later works, which interpret rabbinic ones, allow Idel to recognize the presence of mythologized and theurgic descriptions of the divine in rabbinic literature itself.50 As Idel explains, leading medieval rabbinic figures, such as R. Abraham ben David, would not have relied on foreign sources while presenting the mystical and mythic aspects as the secrets of the Torah.51 This corroborates that the major concepts and mythic elements of the sefirotic system – even if not all of its particular details – evolve from the preexistent conceptions regarding an inner structure of the divine in ancient Jewish mystical tradition, which was latently present in aggadic sources scattered in the rabbinic corpus. On the basis of this theory, Idel validates the possibility of the existence of an internal (or hidden) channel of transmission of various ideas, and of shared hermeneutic positions between various traditions transferred from antiquity through the Middle Ages. Ultimately, his ahistorical and synchronic approach substantiates that the dynamic nature of ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions is a central factor of a theosophic (mythic) and philosophical program in kabbalistic tradition. In all, this approach corroborates that the 49 50

I will examine in detail the works and features of these figures later in this study. I also see the critical influences of an already and older independent evidence in ancient Jewish and rabbinic literature, e.g., the mythic and demiurgic figures of Jewish Wisdom in a feminine form, which were presumably influenced and interacted with the mythological features (such as a spouse-like or mother-like goddess) manifest in ancient Middle Eastern literature. However, as Scholem, in On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, 104–38, noted, I am partially in agreement with Scholem’s approach that kabbalism is a result of some influences of Gnostic myth on Jewish context, and that the essence of the kabbalistic midrash is ascertained in a Gnostic myth which expounds the mythological features of the creation of man and world. In this regard, I do not claim a merely one-sided position, i.e., focusing on the origins and features only from within the rabbinic tradition by rejecting the Gnostic influences. Rather, it will focus on examining thoroughly the multifaceted (theological, philosophical, phenomenological) features of the images of hypostatic notions, related to the concept of Torah, by analyzing holistically the interrelationships of various religious ideas, interacted between rabbinic tradition and ancient mythical (gnostic) and Jewish mystical traditions. 51 Idel, “The Attitude to Christianity in Sefer ha-Meshiv,” Immanuel 12 (1981): 77–95 (Hebrew); idem, “Notes on Medieval Jewish-Christian Polemics,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 [4] (1984): 689–98 (Hebrew); idem, “Jewish Mysticism and Muslim Mysticism,” Mahanayyim 1 (1992): 28–33 (Hebrew); idem, “Orienting, Orientalizing or Disorienting the Study of Kabbalah,” 13–47; idem, “Jewish Kabbalah in Christian Garb,” in Kabbalah in Italy, 1280–1510: A Survey (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011), 227–35; idem, “Jewish Mysticism among the Jews of Arab/Moslem Lands,” Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry 1 (2007): 14–38.

Introduction

17

reconstruction of the history of ideas in the manner in which he undertakes it plays a critical role in bridging the gap between ancient (Second Temple), rabbinic (midrashic-talmudic) and kabbalistic traditions. Idel’s Panoramic Approach: The History of Ideas Based on Experience Idel’s reconstruction of the history of ideas in the history of Jewish thought is focused on discovering the ancient roots of kabbalistic ideas in earlier mystical and mythical sources while identifying kabbalah as a genuine ancient esoteric tradition.52 He, however, does not claim that there is one authentic tradition from antiquity, which can prompt an all-inclusive explanation for kabbalistic thought and practices in the Middle Ages. Instead, his panoramic approach presumes that the disparity we find when comparing ancient sources to medieval sources, suggests a possibility of the existence of additional concealed traditions in antiquity which were eventually transmitted to medieval kabbalists. By this logic, Idel focuses on constructing an “inner-history” of ideas, which emerges from religious experiences recorded in writings of ancient Jewish mystics and rabbinic figures.53 He, in this sense, departs from “a traditionally formulated history of ideas” of the type described by Scholem, while formulating a new system of “inner-history” of ideas and experiences, which reevaluates a variety of texts and their literary creativity.54 He focuses on appreciating and interpreting the texts and phenomena derived from within their own context in order to reconstruct this “inner-history” in Jewish mysticism: 3.2

Therefore, it is as fruitful to discuss kabbalistic phenomena in contradiction to one another as to give a chronological account. The unfolding of the key concepts that characterized and directed kabbalistic activity and thought, their exposition as atemporal modes, and the understanding of their interplay in various Kabbalistic schools is ‘inner’ history of Kabbalah or of Jewish mysticism, just as the temporal description can be considered the ‘outer’ history.55

52 Idel, KNP, 31–33. Idel notes that modern scholars’ reconstructionist method resonates with the medieval kabbalists’ reconstruction of ancient and ‘subterranean’ traditions that reemerged in later times. 53 Idel, “The Contribution of Abraham Abulafia’s Kabbalah,” 126. 54 Idel, “‘The Window of Opportunities’ of Kabbalah: 1270–1290,” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 48 (2002): 5–32. 55 Idel, “On Binary ‘Beginnings’ in Kabbalah Scholarship,” Aporematha. Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte Band 5 (2001): 329.

18

Introduction

Idel implies that a primitive form of mystical ideas that already existed in ancient and pre-kabbalistic texts can be traced through a reconstruction of the ideas (i.e., an inner structure and pattern) of the kabbalists.56 This approach eventually leads to the formulation of a more conceptually unified structure of ideas and experiences between kabbalistic texts and seemingly unrelated motifs in ancient texts.57 Ithamar Gruenwald, along these lines, argues for the continuity between ancient prophecy and mystical ideas in the Scripture as a primitive form, and merkavah mysticism as a full-fledged form (which conveys both an apocalyptic and spiritualized esotericism in Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages).58 Gruenwald also delineates the term “experience” as key to understanding a broad spectrum of themes that will allow scholars to uncover the essence of ancient sources, especially the Scripture.59 He thereby emphasizes that the mystical study (e.g., the theophany and angelology) of Scripture and the talmudic and midrashic literature is a pivotal starting point in the study of Jewish mysticism, as well as for the expansion of the scopes of phenomenological studies, which investigate mystical experiences and hermeneutical strategies.60 56

Ibid. Idel emphasizes the possibility of approaching ancient materials with the help of structures (including pattern, order, and mode) preserved in kabbalah. By contrast, Scholem primarily presupposes that there is no direct philological nexus between the ancient sources and kabbalistic sources. See Scholem, Origins of Kabbalah, 5–7. 57 Idel, KNP, 33. 58 Ithamar Gruenwald, Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism (Leiden-Köln: Brill, 1980), 73–74; idem, “Reflections on the Nature and Origins of Jewish Mysticism,” in Gershom Scholem’s Major trends in Jewish mysticism 50 years after: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, ed. Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 48. In this discussion, Gruenwald traces the developments of the apocalyptic aspects as a particular transitory and interpretative apparatus, which was manifest from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. 59 Ibid. 60 Ibid., 38–42; Gruenwald notes that since the talmudic and midrashic literature have a large collection of material of a “mystical” (i.e., maʿaseh merkavah) and “spiritualistic” (i.e., religiosity and spirituality) nature, they should be included in the study of Jewish mysticism. Daniel Boyarin notes the interrelationships between history, religious experience, and intertextual hermeneutics in terms of elucidating the images and esoteric meanings of the Torah. Boyarin, Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), 105–16. Boyarin (118–19) explains that the contents of R. Akiva’s midrash in Mek. d’R Ishmael, Shirata 3:50–63, reflect a profound nexus between intertextuality and historical context, while explaining the apocalyptic and eschatological implications, based on the dynamics of the midrashic interpretations of mashal and nimshal. See the translation of Mek. d’R Ishmael, Shirata 3:50–63 in Judah Goldin, The Song at the Sea; Being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971), 115–29 (esp. 115–17): “This is my God, and I will beautify Him

Introduction

19

In this same vein, Idel further delves into the history of religious (or mystical) experiences in the esoteric dimensions of kabbalah, which are implicitly grounded in the ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions.61 Unlike Scholem’s historical interpretation, Idel appreciates an inner channel of mystical experience, which contains the dynamics of models (including structures, patterns, and orders), even while he still bases his analysis on philological and historical tools.62 Idel constructs a way of amalgamating experiences and hermeneutics, although he recognizes a qualitative difference between the texts or religious experiences of the kabbalists and the theory and hermeneutics of the modern scholars. As Abrams notes, Idel thereby investigates “the interpretative experiences of the medieval kabbalists from the text” and “an encounter with God as the divine secrets.”63 In Absorbing Perfection: Kabbalah and Interpretation, Idel specifically describes a process of arcanization, i.e., attributing an esoteric dimension to the canonical texts, which presupposes a contact with divine reality through an interpretative experience of the secret layers of a text.64 He explains that mystical experience has two senses in interpretation: “an experiential moment” and “an ergetic act,” which “allows understanding by the process of doing, which traces the interpreted text with valences of their own.”65 Wolfson also notes that experience and interpretation can be convergent on the basis of the linguistic theory according to which the language of the biblical text for the kabbalists is not merely an indirect medium for interpreting and expressing [Ex 15:2]. Rabbi Akiva says: Before all the nations of the world I shall hold forthon the beauties and splendor of Him-Who-Spake-and-the-World-Came-to-be!” and “My beloved is mine, and I am His; I am my beloved’s, and He is mine; He feedeth among the lilies (Song 2:16 and 6:3).” See also Teugels, The Meshalim in the Mekhiltot: An Annotated Edition and Translation of the Parables in Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishmael and Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2019), 260–70. However, some scholars, such as Urbach, reduce this to an allusion of certain historical events in the age of R. Akiva who died a martyr’s death. Urbach “The Homiletical Interpretations of the Sages and the Expositions of Origen on Canticles and the Jewish-Christian Disputation,” Scripta Hierosolymitana 22 (1971): 247–75. 61 Idel, KNP, 33; Ron Margolin, “Moshe Idel’s Phenomenology and its Sources,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6 (18) (2007): 41–42. 62 Idel, “Rabbinism versus Kabbalism,” 281–96. 63 Abrams, “Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism,” 60–61; Idel, KNP, 75–88, 234–49. By contrast, Scholem seems to emphasize the identification between the doctrines found in the kabbalistic literature and the intention and function of the acts of reading the medieval kabbalists. 64 Idel, Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002), 137–63. 65 Abrams, op. cit., 71.

20

Introduction

truths about the divine, but also becomes a direct vehicle for experiencing God.66 Moreover, as he explains, the language of the letters of the Torah radically become a critical building block of kabbalistic hermeneutics through the atomization which breaks the text down to its letters.67 The hermeneutic reading or interpretative experience of texts implies that the “meaning of the experience itself can be learned from discursive works composed at a later time,” while establishing a “continuum between the [linguistic] techniques which induce mystical experience, the experience itself, and the literary product which results or follows from this experience.”68 In order to substantiate a new or important link between ancient and medieval sources that construct the edifice of medieval Jewish mysticism, Idel investigates the self-awareness of the medieval kabbalists about the inner structures of ideas in ancient and rabbinic traditions, which are implicitly revealed in their writings and exegeses. Specifically, he analyzes Abulafia’s self-awareness that his own form of kabbalah is based on the spirit of the ancient mystical writings that reflect the ancient literary forms and experiential elements.69 Idel thereby reconstructs the self-awareness of the medieval kabbalist that might have influenced the association “between bodies of literature and their hermeneutic keys.”70 By this logic, he assumes that the medieval kabbalists restored the inner and hidden structures of ideas found in ancient sources, while enhancing their intents and meanings in a new literary context, which modern readers can recover on their own terms. On the basis of the subjective impression based on perspectivism, he asserts that the medieval kabbalists regarded kabbalah as “a genuine ancient tradition which is an esoteric interpretation of Judaism,” and consciously accumulated “the scattered keys of Jewish esotericism” already present in ancient texts, reinterpreted them,

66 Elliot R. Wolfson, “The Hermeneutics of Visionary Experience: Revelation and Interpreta­ tion in the Zohar,” Religion 18 (1988): 311–45; idem, “Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience,” in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 years after: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism, ed. Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993), 209–10. Wolfson notes that the interpretative and experiential modes are inseparable in the kabbalistic sources. 67 Ibid., 250–71. 68 Idel, Kabbalah: New Perspectives, 37–38. 69 Idel, “Radical Hermeneutics: From Ancient to Medieval and Modern Hermeneutics,” Atti Dei Convegni Lincei-Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei 135 (1998): 165–201. The phenomenological differences between the two schools are also documented in the history of later theosophic kabbalists who reformed Abulafia’s ideas and texts into their own works. 70 Abrams, “op. cit., 79; idem, The Book Bahir, 7–8.

Introduction

21

and even reconstructed new works of Jewish esotericism.71 He thereby corroborates the existence and continuity of Jewish esotericism regarding experience and interpretation throughout the trajectories of the history of Jewish mysticism. In addition, Idel provides evidence of the difference in their respective self-awareness regarding the ancient and rabbinic traditions that are at the basis of their thought (especially the idea of devekut as a primitive structure).72 In the third chapter of KNP, which is a survey of the “Varieties of Devekut in Jewish Mysticism,” he restores the significance of the multitude of interpretations of devekut in kabbalistic literature that he suggests previous scholars have neglected due to historical biases that considered devekut as reflecting the values of a primitive forms of Jewish life and practice.73 He emphasizes the significance of language as the vehicle of experience, such as devekut, theurgy, and magic, while analyzing various forms of hermeneutics about the innerrelationship of diverse ideas and religious experiences throughout the history of Jewish mysticism.74 Specifically, Idel notes that Abulafia’s synthetic approach, which combines linguistic, experiential, and spiritual features, formulates a more comprehensive picture about the interrelationship between ancient and rabbinic traditions and the patterns of thinking and practice in kabbalah.75 He scrutinizes Abulafia’s ecstatic kabbalah, which focuses on experiencing and achieving the unification, through devekut or unio mystica, of the human soul and the divine through the use of linguistic techniques and manipulation of the divine names,

71 Idel, KNP, 31–32; Moshe Halbertal, Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and its Philosophical Implications (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009), 69–74; Abrams, op. cit., 79; idem, “The Literary Emergence of Esotericism in German Pietism,” Shofar 12 (1994): 67–85. 72 Idel, KNP, 202–3. Idel compares the two types of kabbalah and their respective mystical practices, which derive from the different historical and phenomenological religious thought and experience, in keeping with varying understandings of the divine names and sefirot. See Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names” in Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics, and Typologies, ed. Robert A. Herrera (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 97–122. 73 Idel, “Varieties of Devekut in Jewish Mysticism,” in Kabbalah, New Perspectives, 35–58; idem, “‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: Some observations on ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Mysticism,” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (2002): 19–41. 74 Ibid. 75 Idel, “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn,” A Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 4 (1998): 495–528. Idel characterizes Abulafia’s syncretic appropriation of earlier sources and methods as a “perspectivism.”

22

Introduction

in contrast to the theosophic school of the thirteenth century kabbalah.76 He thereby explains a profound relationship between “a view elaborated in ancient Jewish texts which portrays the supernal realm in linguistic terms” and “a view that flourished among some forms of Jewish elite” in the late thirteenth century.77 By this logic, Idel tries to reconstruct the religious phenomenon of devekut in a wide range of trajectories of Jewish mysticism from antiquity through post-medieval texts. Idel specifically evaluates Abulafia’s idea of devekut as part of the diachronic reconstruction of a religious phenomenology in the later medieval trajectories of Jewish mysticism.78 He proposes a typology of devekut, which comprises three main types in accordance with its unitive concepts and images: Explicitly mystical interpretations of devekut occur in Jewish medieval and postmedieval texts. Some of them may convey real mystical, possibly unitive, experiences; others may represent exegetical attempts to interpret sacred texts. There is no way to either confirm or negate the possibility that such types of experience existed among Jews, even before the written evidence on unitive experiences emerged. The fact that this happened, however, only after the appearance of philosophical terminology demonstrates that philosophical concepts were a garb used by mystics in order to articulate their experiences. I should like to propose a typology of concepts and images used to communicate the unitive perception of a mystical experience that will show the gamut of divine nomenclature in this domain. One can distinguish three main types of devekut terminology: Aristotelian, Neoplatonic, and Hermetic, according to the specific bodies of speculative literatures that generated the various themes.79

76 Idel, “Torah: Between Presence and Representation of the Divine in Jewish Mysticism,” Religion 89 (2001): 197–235. Idel evaluates the continuum between the nature of the divine, the mystical experience itself, and the techniques for attaining mystical experience. He also develops the idea of devekut and unio mystica which is grounded in an ontological continuity between the Torah and the divine, and the concept of Torah as a hypostatic mediator. 77 Idel, Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism, ed. Harold Bloom and Daniel Abrams (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005), 75. 78 Idel, “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn,” 310; Idel, “Defining Kabbalah,” 106. Idel, however, does not claim that Abulafia himself was involved “in a phenomenological comparison for its own sake, but as a result of a polemical context.” 79 Idel, KNP, 39–42.

Introduction

23

Idel elaborates on three main types of devekut in the following manner.80 The Aristotelian type focuses on the concept of noetic union which necessitates the concept of a mechanical mediator, such as the Active Intellect, which connects God and human intellect. This type can be found in “all Aristotelian schools – Greek, Arabic, Jewish, and Christian,” and explicitly in the thought of Maimonides and Abulafia’s ecstatic kabbalah.81 The Neoplatonic type focuses on the mystical union through the transformative theory of the human intellect (or soul) to the universal intellect (or soul) in an “ascent” direction.82 This type predominantly can be gleaned from the Geronese kabbalah, Hasidism, and even Islamic and Christian mysticism. The Hermetic type focuses on a magical practice (widely known as theurgy) which draws the powers and spirits of the divine into the human soul through the theurgical activities, such as prayer and performing commandments, in a “descent” direction. This type appears in the Geronese and Hasidic writings, and Neoplatonic and Hermetic treatises.83 The three distinctive types and interpretations of devekut, as Idel notes, appear in a conceptual and terminological interplay, as a common interest. This reflects the widespread commitment to the concept of unitive religious experience throughout Jewish mystical writings and thought. Unlike Scholem, who refused to acknowledge a direct relationship between rabbinic Judaism and kabbalah in favor of the Gnostic origin of kabbalah, Idel emphasizes “theurgy as [a] necessary qualifier of theosophy” as “a hypercorrection to Scholem’s idealism of theosophy as the doctrinal study of the heavens.”84 Idel demonstrates the role of theurgy in rabbinic texts, and thereby 80 81 82 83 84

Ibid. On the basis of Idel’s three types of devekut, I will also discuss the different roles and features of devekut as they relate to the images of Torah later in this study. Ibid., 40. Ibid., 41. Idel notes, that “The deep religious significance of this form of philosophy for mysticism has already been recognized in the cases of Islamic and Christian mysticism, and Kabbalah fully shares with these mystical systems a deep interest in Neoplatonism.” Ibid; idem, “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance,” 186–242. Abrams, “Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism,” 41. Again, while I am partially in agreement with Idel’s position, I do not rule out Scholem’s thesis of some Gnostic influences on the development of the kabbalistic thought. As Peter Schäfer notes, for instance, Philo’s dualistic concept (immanent and transcendent) of Wisdom is deeply connected to the gnostic Wisdom myth, which is manifest in Jewish and Christian Gnosis as its earliest adaptation of the classical Jewish wisdom tradition. Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2002), 73–78. It is conceivable that the images and roles of personified Wisdom in Proverbs, which were influenced by the Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythological influences, have been later appropriated and associated with the Platonic and gnostic mythology. In particular, the

24

Introduction

provides a new and distinctive perspective on the development of kabbalistic traditions and on the understanding of the arcanization of the scriptures.85 In so doing, he emphasizes that the idea of devekut appears to play a role as a preparatory instrument for the theurgical purpose of achieving divine unity, which from a kabbalistic perspective requires the theurgic union of the sefirot.86 He particularly elaborates on a theurgical impact of devekut upon the divine names (which leads to the unification of the sefirot) in the theosophical structure, and shows that these concepts are related to a rabbinic rhetoric and hermeneutical interpretation regarding theurgical operations of the Temple sacrifice.87 On the basis of this logic, he theorizes a theurgical experience of devekut and unio mystica, which activates the divine powers by means of their reflections in human thought, and leads to the “interiorization” of the divine in an inner mental process of the kabbalist as “a real mystical union with an imago dei.”88 He further discusses the symbolic implications of theurgical activities (prayer and performing the commandments) of the kabbalist who interacts with the divine in an interplay between experience and Valentinian Gnosis, mentioned in Irenaeus’ work, Ptolemy’s version of the gnostic myth according to St. Irenaeus of Lyon, Adversus Haereses (Adv. Haer.) 1.1.1–1.8.5 (Ptolemy’s version of the Gnostic myth), shows a division between an upper Wisdom, which belongs to the spiritual and heavenly realm, and a lower Wisdom, which belongs to the physical and earthly realm. See the translation in Bentley Layton, The Gnostic Scriptures: A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions (New York: Doubleday, 1987), 276–302 (esp. 281–83). In this context, from a broader perspective based on the two senses of Idel’s phenomenological and panoramic approach, it is not reasonable to exclude the Gnostic mythological features, which would have presumably influenced the formation of various images of Torah through the history of Jewish and Christian thought. I will discuss this subject later in detail in this study. 85 Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 165–66. Idel distinguishes between “drawing down theurgy” and “universe-maintenance activity” in the emanative sense of the Neoplatonic system. Idel particularly analyzes the features of a theurgical language in relation to mystical experience, which are already manifest in ancient rabbinic and mystical texts and continue through late medieval kabbalistic literature. 86 Idel, KNP, 58. 87 Ibid., 53–55. As Lieve M. Teugels notes, the theology of the Rabbis through the midrashic perspectives of the Torah can be explained by the combination of rhetorical and hermeneutical features. Teugels, The Meshalim in the Mekhiltot: An Annotated Edition and Translation of the Parables in Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishmael and Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2019), 54–64; Boyarin, Intertextuality, 1–21, 105–29; idem, “An Exchange on the Mashal: Rhetoric and Interpretation – the Case of Nimshal,” Prooftexts 5 (1985): 269–76; David Stern, “David Stern Responds,” Prooftexts 5 (1985): 276–80. 88 Ibid., 56. As Idel notes, the Zohar describes the state of devekut as a precondition for theurgic influence on the sefirotic system.

Introduction

25

interpretation.89 In order to establish the continuity of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica from ancient and rabbinic traditions to the medieval kabbalistic tradition, Idel substantiates the existence of correlations between the theurgic, theosophic, and mythic thought in kabbalah, and the theurgical understanding of the commandments as intended to influence divine unity, which he argues is already found in ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions.90 In all, Idel’s panoramic approach to the history of ideas, based on religious (or mystical) experiences, provides critical insight not only into the history of the concepts of Torah and images of Torah but also the continuity of the related essential ideas, such as devekut and unio mystica, and the concept of a mediator. It reinforces not only the antiquity of the thought and exegetical practices of the medieval mystics and their mystical depictions of experiencing God but also elucidates the exegetical and hermeneutical strategies based on the authors’ theological intentions and philosophical frameworks, which dynamically formulated the three (angelic, God-like, and messianic) images of Torah manifest throughout the history of Jewish mysticism and religious thought. This thereby substantiates the developmental process of the images of Torah as a model, which I will emphasize in this study, while verifying their interactive and complicated recurrence found in the various layers of ancient (Second Temple), rabbinic, and kabbalistic literature. In this context, by grounding my research methodology in the panoramic approach, I will show concrete evidence of the continuity of the three images of Torah and related ideas in the history of Jewish thought, as a more comprehensive model. Following Idel’s first sense of phenomenology regarding models, I first examine the inter-relationships between various models of and traditions about the images of Torah from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. I will also analyze the primitive forms of the images of Torah that were implicitly manifest in ancient, Second Temple, and rabbinic sources regarding the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah through a philological and intertextual examination.91 However, my 89

Ibid., 39–42; idem, Absorbing Perfection, 59. Cf. Morris Faierstein, “God’s Need for Commandments in Medieval Kabbalah,” Conservative Judaism 36 (1982): 45–59. 90 Idel, KNP, 156–57. 91 Gérard Genette, in Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997), xviii, defines the intertextuality in “an undoubtedly restrictive manner” as “a relation of co-presence between two or more texts, that is to say, eidetically and most often, by the literal presence of one text within another.” Intertextuality implies that the meaning of a text can be reformulated by the features of other texts, such as allusion, quotation, translation, pastiche, parody and so on. For instance, an author transforms a prior text, or a reader references a prior text in reading the other. Heinrich E. Plett, in Intertextuality, Research in Text Theory 15, ed. Janos S. Petofi and Hans-Peter Mai (Berlin:

26

Introduction

aim is not to prove the exact philological and historical connections between ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic sources, on the one hand and the kabbalistic sources, on the other. It is rather to investigate the phenomenological associations and features of the images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, which mainly appear within various religious traditions from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages. In so doing, I do not ignore the influences and relationships, emphasized by Scholem, between the Jewish and Christian Gnostic mythical ideas and the kabbalistic ideas. My focus, though, is on the investigation of the phenomenological associations between various ideas and images of the hypostatic notions that are linked to the concept of Torah. I thereby model the images of Torah within various religious traditions in terms of appropriating Idel’s panoramic approach.92 While focusing on elucidating the critical links missing between ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions and the kabbalistic tradition, I will also consider the Gnostic influences as one of various religious traditions, which influenced the development of various hypostatic notions that generated the images of Torah developed in the history of Jewish and Christian thought. On the basis of this primary analysis, following the second sense of phenomenology, which delves into the features of religious experience (i.e., devekut and unio mystica), I will investigate the particular exegetic and hermeneutic strategies, which actively utilize a literary device (a poetic and midrashic approach) and an exegetic apparatus (e.g., allegory and symbolism)93 for formulating the images of Torah as a mediator that connects human beings and God. I will elucidate their intertextual and theological relationships within the

92 93

Walter de Gruyter, 1991), 5–6, also notes that intertextuality studies an “intertext,” i.e., “a text between other texts” (5), in a linguistic or cultural system in which the text exists. Plett also notes a twofold coherence: “an intratextual one which guarantees the immanent integrity of the text, and an intertextual one which creates structural relations between itself and other texts. The twofold coherence makes for the richness and complexity of the intertext, but also for its problematic status” (5). My use of the term “intertextuality” in this study follows the view of these scholars. David R. Klingler, in “Validity in the Identification and Interpretation of a Literary Allusion in the Hebrew Bible” (PhD diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010), 91–93, makes a distinction between intertextuality (a synchronic and reader-oriented method) and inner-biblical interpretation (a diachronic and author-oriented method). Considering the direction of phenomenological analysis, which examines the ideas based on the religious experience of readers and authors in this study, I utilize simultaneously the intertextual analysis and inner biblical interpretation. See note 44 in the Introduction. The philosophical allegory is primarily based on the existence of two (i.e., revealed and hidden) layers of truth in the scriptural texts, whereas the sefirotic symbolism transforms the scriptural texts into divine symbols for the sake of human comprehension. I will discuss in detail these hermeneutical apparatuses later in this study.

Introduction

27

supposed forms of two different (Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered) traditions which dynamically developed the three images of Torah. I will thereby corroborate the continuity of these recurring ideas regarding the images of Torah by comparing the primitive forms of the images of Torah in the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods with the full-fledged forms in medieval kabbalistic sources. In all, I will substantiate the continuity of the three images of Torah within the development of two distinctive traditions throughout the history of Jewish thought. Since this research is focused on phenomenological analysis of the three images of Torah, it is relatively confined to analyzing of the phenomenological features (i.e., the conceptual changes of Torah, and interactions and associations of the images of Torah) in accordance with the two senses of Idel’s phenomenology of models, rather than proving the historical (i.e., chronological and philological) connections of ancient rabbinic and Jewish mystical traditions with the kabbalistic tradition. Moreover, the critical implications gleaned from analyzing the intertwined images of various hypostatic notions, associated with the concept of Torah, will allow me to describe a new model – that of images of Torah – in accord with the panoramic approach. Based on this examination, I will further reevaluate the formation and development of the images of Torah as a model based on religious experience, while appreciating their features and significance in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions manifest from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages. 4

Research Methodology with an Outline of Chapters

Based on Idel’s panoramic approach, this study focuses not only on investigating the relationships and continuities between ancient and medieval Jewish sources and views concerning the images of Torah as a comprehensive model but also on providing concrete examples of their interactions and progressive development in relation to the ideas of devekut and unio mystica throughout the history of Jewish thought. PART 1 has two Chapters (1, 2). In Chapter 1, I first will examine Torah’s conceptual, historical, and philosophical backgrounds in the Second Temple period, in addition to analyzing the biblical, philosophical, rabbinic, and Jewish mystical concepts of Torah in the relevant sources. I will then discuss the historical and philosophical backgrounds of the shifting process from the Temple sacrifices to the focus on Torah and Torah study in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. I will examine not only the Hellenistic influences throughout the Second Temple period on the concepts of Torah in Jewish texts and contexts but also Second Temple Jewish and rabbinic

28

Introduction

approaches to the concepts of Torah as seen in Jewish biblical and rabbinic interpretations and exegetical practices. I will also summarize the critical findings and implications concerning the historical and philosophical centralization of Torah that is reflected in Jewish texts and contexts throughout the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Specifically, I will examine in detail the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, such as Wisdom and Logos, while tracing the conceptual changes of Torah and God and the developmental process of the hypostatic notions associated with Torah. However, I do not claim in this dissertation the priority of the origin of Torah over Wisdom and Logos, even while I investigate the phenomenological features and associations of various hypostatic notions related to the concept of Torah throughout the history of Jewish thought. Against this backdrop, I first will look at how the concepts of Torah were related to various characteristics of personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature, including the Qumran wisdom texts. On the basis of the profound relationship between Torah and personified Wisdom, I will examine the intertextual and theological relationship between the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah. I will analyze the critical features of Philo’s Logos, which is a synthesis between Jewish Wisdom and Greek Logos, and thereby elaborate the intertextual and theological relationships between personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature and Jesus as Incarnate Logos in the Gospels (i.e., the Synoptics and the Fourth Gospel) in early Christianity. Finally, I will elucidate the existence and interaction of the primitive forms of the two supposed traditions, Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered, by corroborating the twofold features: the Logos-centered hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, as well as the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom and shekhinah. In Chapter 2, I will evaluate not only the significance of the characteristics of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah but also the primitive forms of the three images of Torah as angelic, messianic, and God-like, as well as their roles and functions as mediators connecting God and human beings. I will delve into the intertextual, exegetical (linguistic, semantic, and thematic), and theological relationships between the Logos-centered and Wisdomcentered hypostatic notions of Torah. I will clarify the theological and philosophical nexus between the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, personified Wisdom, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah, while illuminating a critical implication for the profound relationships between the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered traditions. This will allow me to discuss the manner in which Torah’s images in the medieval Jewish mystical and philosophical traditions are already present in the primitive forms in the hypostatic

Introduction

29

notions, linked to the concept of Torah, manifest in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. On the basis of this examination, I will elucidate the critical implications for the three images of Torah, which are derived from the synthesis of the philosophical and mystical traditions. Furthermore, I will summarize the critical features of the primitive forms of the three images (angelic, messianic, and God-like) of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, while discovering the points that these images share with similar hypostatic ideas, such as Wisdom and Logos. By comparing their images and activities, I will elaborate not only the concept and critical features of the three images of Torah as mediators but also the significance of two supposed primitive forms of the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions: Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. I will then discuss the existence and conceptual functions of what I will argue is a primitive form of devekut and unio mystica as a hermeneutic and phenomenological structure, which generates and formulates the images of Torah within several combined philosophical and theosophical frameworks and the profound interactions of the two supposed traditions. PART 2 has four Chapters (3, 4, 5, and 6) which investigate the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions in relation to the three images of Torah. In Chapter 3, I will examine the angelic images of Torah, which mainly appear in the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition by analyzing the concept of the Active Intellect in relation to that of devekut in the thought of Maimonides, Gersonides, and some kabbalists, such as Abulafia and R. Isaac of Acre, who were influenced by Maimonides. Specifically, I first will demonstrate the continuity and relationship between the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and Metatron manifest in the Second Temple and late antique Jewish sources and the Active Intellect as a full-fledged form of the hypostatic notions in the medieval Jewish philosophical sources. I will also examine their conceptions of noetic union (i.e., a state of ideal devekut to the Active Intellect and to the letters of the Divine Name), which combine biblical, philosophical, and kabbalistic perspectives. Through this examination, I will uncover the exegetical and hermeneutical implications of the angelic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions as a mediator, such as Philo’s Logos and Active Intellect, while uncovering the theological and hermeneutical implications related to the idea of noetic union in the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition. In Chapter 4, I will examine the God-like images of Torah in the medieval Jewish mystical tradition by analyzing the hypostatic notions within the sefirot manifest in the thought of early and thirteenth century kabbalists, such as the Geronese kabbalists, as well as Abulafia, Moses de Leon, and Joseph Gikatilla.

30

Introduction

I first will analyze the interactions and continuities between the primitive forms of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in the Second Temple period and the transitional or full-fledged forms of the hypostatic notions of Torah in the late antique and medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. In particular, I will focus on investigating the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah and ḥokhmah, which reflect the God-like images of Torah in the sefirotic system, by looking into the hermeneutic strategies that utilize linguistic symbolism in the works of the early kabbalists. By investigating their approaches to the concepts of Torah, I will illuminate how they formulated the God-like images of Torah, which functioned as a hidden mediator connecting God and human beings, and the relationship of this image to devekut and unio mystica to the sefirot. I will also discuss the features of the hermeneutic apparatuses of allegory and symbolism, which are related to the formulation of the images of Torah, and which are prominently employed in the medieval Jewish mystical tradition. In Chapter 5, I will examine the messianic images of Torah, which appear in combination with the angelic and God-like images of Torah manifest from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. In order to uncover the messianic images of Torah, I will examine the dynamic interactions between hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah, which dynamically interacted and developed in late antique Jewish and rabbinic literature as well as in kabbalistic literature. Specifically, I will also examine the messianic thought of Geronese kabbalah, Abulafia, the Zoharic circle, and Gikatilla, while comparing and analyzing their strategies, which combine the messianic ideas and concepts with the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. I will further examine the theological, philosophical, and hermeneutical frameworks of these Jewish mystics, which create these messianic images of Torah – which conjoin with the angelic God-like images of Torah as apparatuses for experiencing the divine realms and God. Finally, in Chapter 6, on the basis of Idel’s panoramic approach, which assumes the existence of an inner channel of ideas based on religious experiences throughout the history of Jewish mysticism, I uncover the historical, exegetical, philosophical, and phenomenological relationships between the three images of Torah and their earlier precedents. On the basis of this investigation, I will examine the historical background for the development of Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions in relation to the images of Torah in the Middle Ages, while examining their continuity and connectivity with the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. I will analyze the significance of the three images of Torah (angelic, messianic, and God-like) as mediators, and

Introduction

31

describe how the various conceptions of a mediator continued to develop in the Jewish mystical and philosophical traditions from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages. I will further elucidate critical findings and implications of the centrality of Torah and of its three images in the medieval Jewish philosophical and kabbalistic traditions, and the manner in which they are reverberations of the three images of the Logos-centered and Wisdomcentered hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, manifest in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Furthermore, I will illuminate the exegetical and hermeneutical implications of the images of various hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, manifest in rabbinic sources and in later antique Jewish mystical sources, as a phenomenological apparatus of bridging ancient Jewish mysticism and medieval kabbalah from the Second Temple period and the Middle Ages. Finally, I will elucidate the critical implications of the primitive forms of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica, which can substantiate the continuity and developmental process of recurring religious ideas and phenomena into their full-fledged forms in the Middle Ages. In all, I will also reevaluate not only the significance of the ideas and religious experiences of devekut and unio mystica in relation to the dynamics of three images of Torah but also their crucial meaning as a religious phenomenon reflected in the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. In the conclusion, I will summarize the significant implications of my work as it relates to the critical factors regarding the images of Torah as a model in accordance with Idel’s two senses of phenomenology, and understanding the hermeneutical methodologies, which combine experience and interpretation in terms of a panoramic approach. I will suggest the need not only for a deeper phenomenological examination of the religious phenomena involved in the ongoing developmental process of the images of Torah in the history of Jewish thought but also for a wider future phenomenological investigation of the similar phenomena within Christianity and other religions.

Part 1 Images of Torah in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods

∵

Chapter 1

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah On the basis of Idel’s panoramic approach noted in the Introduction, I will examine the historical and conceptual backgrounds of Torah while analyzing the interactions between various concepts of Torah: biblical, philosophical, rabbinic and Jewish mystical within various religious and ideological traditions during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. I thereby will investigate the process of development of the concept of Torah into various hypostatic notions, as derivative forms linked to the concept of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah. In so doing, I will examine their exegetical practices that helped formulated these forms of Torah and the intertextual and theological relationships between them as reflected in early Jewish and Christian sources, as well as in later rabbinic sources. In the course of this examination, I will discuss the significant hermeneutical strategies (i.e., hypostatization and personification through allegory and symbolism), which dynamically formulate the concepts and images of Torah. This examination will provide critical insight not only into the primitive forms of the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, but also thereby demonstrate the existence of the two supposed traditions – Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered – which were manifest during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Furthermore, I will illuminate the conceptual relationships, interactions, and continuities of the hypostatic notions of Torah, bridging the gaps between ancient (Second Temple) and later rabbinic and Jewish mystical traditions, which were continuously developed from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through Late Antiquity. 1

The Conceptual and Historical Backdrops of Torah

In its various usages in the Hebrew Bible, “Torah” usually appears to mean ‘Law.’ However, the programmatic discoveries of biblical criticism give a critical insight into various meanings of “Torah” in the Hebrew Bible and other early Jewish sources, beyond the simple equation between biblical references to Torah and the Pentateuch.1 Indeed, it is conceivable that the biblical concept 1 Jon D. Levenson, “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism,” in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross, ed. © Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_003

36

Chapter 1

of Torah gradually developed as a term referring to a corpus that includes the teaching of the prophets and the Hagiographa during the Hellenistic period, largely before the Maccabean Revolt. The traditional concept of the Torah is as a name for “the Book of the Law of Moses” in Josh 8:31–32, 1 Kgs 2:3, 2 Kgs 14:6, Ezra 6:18, Neh 13:1, and “the Book of the Law of God” in Neh 8:8, and so forth. Jon D. Levenson implies the fluidity and change of the concept and meaning of Torah in the formative process of the Pentateuchal tradition, such as a re-composition of Gen 1–Ex 12, in the Second Temple period.2 It is also crucial to note that the biblical concepts and meanings of Torah include the reproaches regarding the observance of the precepts, the reprimands and promises of the prophecies, the ethics of the Wisdom books, and the recorded history of Israel. In this context, I will briefly discuss not only the historical and conceptual backgrounds of Torah in relation to the concept of the Temple in the Second Temple period but also the influences of political and social factors. I will also consider the emergence and evolution of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah that are found during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods.3 The stories of Abraham and Moses are fundamental to understanding the history of the emergence of the First and Second Temple in relation to the historical backgrounds of the Torah.4 The idea of a portable tabernacle for God and his Torah eventually culminated in the establishment of the First and Second Temples on the basis of the covenantal relationship between the Israelites and God. Throughout the history of the Second Temple period, the Torah naturally became the basis and standard of people’s lives, and many Jews decided to declare the Torah as the foundation of national, social and religious life. During the Hellenistic and even Hasmonean periods, Jewish Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987), 560; Barnabas Lindars, “Torah in Deuteronomy,” in Words and Meanings, ed. Peter R. Ackroyd (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 117–36. Biblical criticism mainly supports the position that large parts of the Pentateuch date from after the postexilic period. 2 Levenson, “The Sources of Torah,” 560–1. Levenson shows that the author(s) of Jubilees regarded the Pentateuch as authoritative but not as definitive or fixed material, while considering its exegetical derivations. Cf. Jub. 1:27, 29. The fluidity of producing the Pentateuchal tradition in the Second Temple period, such as a re-composition of Gen 1–Ex 12, alludes to a possibility not only of divine inspiration even after the canonical prophets but also of a rabbinic concept of non-Pentateuchal Torah. 3 Lawrence H. Schiffman, From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1991), 3. 4 The story of Abraham, who followed God’s command to sacrifice Isaac on Mount Moriah (Gen 22:1–14), is recounted in the story of King Solomon’s construction of the First Temple (2 Chr 3:1).

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

37

people constantly had to make many efforts to survive as a minority ethnic and religious group in Jewish Palestine and the Diaspora, including Babylonia.5 As Lawrence Schiffman points out, the most central aspect in the Second Temple period was the shift of the center of worship from Temple sacrifice to the study of Torah and prayer.6 In particular, a diverse collection of the Jewish writings of Second Temple literature corroborates the authorization and canonization of the Hebrew Bible (i.e., Tanakh) which contains the Torah (Pentateuch), Prophets, and Writings, at around the time of the destruction of the Temple in 70 CE.7 The collapse of the Second Temple in 70 BCE, which was a major event in Jewish history, had a huge impact on the social and religious dimensions of Jewish communities. Interestingly, during the late Second Temple period, the Qumran community appears to have been waiting for an idealized Jerusalem Temple.8 However, unlike the expectation of the Qumran community, after the destruction of the Second Temple, a new Temple was neither rebuilt nor established. Instead, Schiffman notes both the emerging position of synagogues, which were developed as a significant institution, and the gradual dominance of the study of Torah and prayer instead of Temple sacrifice within Jewish Palestine.9 The sacrifice and ritual purity of worship in the Temple were explicitly likened to prayers and Torah study in the two major institutions (the yeshivas and synagogues).10 Prayers, which were usually conducted in the synagogue, played a very important role in Jewish religious life.11 The liturgical

5 6

Schiffman, From Text to Tradition, 18–57, 62–66, 76–79, 80–88, 98–99. Ibid., 164. See also Gedalia Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, 70–640 C.E., ed. Gershon Levi (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989, c1984), 46. Schiffman and Alon argue that the conception of Torah in ancient Judaism was gradually formulated in relationship to the religious and theological concepts of the Temple sacrifice, and it later dynamically interacted with the Hellenistic philosophies and cultures. 7 Schiffman, 56–59, 88–91, 140. As Schiffman notes, “the canonization of the Torah already was completed by the time of Ezra and Nehemiah,” (57) and “The Prophets was canonized late in the Persian period, probably by the start of the fourth century BCE.” (58). 8 Ibid., 135. 9 Ibid., 166. 10 It is conceivable that Torah study in the synagogues and yeshivas began to be significantly emphasized as an alternative tool and extension of the sacrifices in the Temple, and it has been gradually developed in the two institutions until institutional yeshivas arose in the later talmudic period. 11 Stefan C. Reif, Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993), 65–72. As representative passages of prayer in the Old Testament, there are Gen 28:20–22; Ex 32:11–14; Num 12:13; Dt 26:1–12; 1 Sam 1:1–28; 1 Kgs 8:22–53; Neh 1:4–11. In addition, other well-known biblical prayers include the Song of Moses (Ex 15:1–18), the Song of Hannah (1 Sam 2:1–10).

38

Chapter 1

prayers were seen as alluding to the rituals and priestly prayers of the Temple.12 The prayers ultimately not only served the purpose of replacing the Temple sacrifices but also as an example of glorifying the Divine Name.13 It is notable that in addition to prayers, more importantly, Torah study was conducted in both synagogues and yeshivas in the Diaspora.14 The yeshiva means literally “sitting” and semantically refers to the activities of the academy with the sage and their pupils in the fixed order of seating. There are several synonyms for yeshiva: bet ha-midrash (lit. “the house of study”), bet din (lit. “the house of law”), metivta (the Aramaic rendering of yeshiva).15 Interestingly, the Tannaim, who were rabbinic sages in the Second Temple Period, regarded the Great Sanhedrin, which had its seat in the Chamber of Hewn Stone, as a yeshiva (e.g., m. Mid. 5:4; b. Sanh. 88b; b. Sanh. 32b).16 The Great Sanhedrin had functions, 12

Moshe Greenberg, “On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in Hebrew Scriptures,” AJS Review 1 (1976): 76–80. 13 Greenberg, 80; Shaye J. D. Cohen, in From the Maccabees to the Mishnah (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987), 22, notes that for the pre-exilic Israelites, “prayer was not a standard part of worship, either in the temple or anywhere else” (22). However, Second Temple and rabbinic Judaism gradually developed a new way of worship: prayers and the study of Torah (218). 14 David M. Goodblatt characterizes the forms and features of yeshivas of Tannaitic and Amoraic periods as “disciple circles” rather than “academies.” See David M. Goodblatt, Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 44–59, 267–72. Goodblatt (59) also points out that we “must approach the data available in Amoraic sources free from the preconceptions imposed by Geonic tradition.” Jeffrey L. Rubenstein (58) also notes, “In many cases rabbinic sources project back upon earlier ages.” As Rubenstein (62) describes, the form and scale of yeshivas appears as small groups of disciples who might have gathered around a rabbinic master in his home, e.g., “the study house of the family of the nasi (patriarch), the dynasty of Rabban Gamaliel.” See Rubenstein, “Social and Institutional Settings of Rabbinic Literature,” in The Cambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature, ed. Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin Jaffee (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 58–74. Cohen notes that the synagogues were neither a uniquely rabbinic invention nor a rabbinic institution. The yeshivas, in contrast, had more spiritual and intellectual authority than any other institutions in rabbinic Judaism. See Cohen, 223. For evidence that Torah study was as an activity in the synagogue, see also Mt 4:5; 6:2–13; 9:35, Mk 3:1–6; Lk 6:6–11; Acts 13:14. 15 This implies that there were primitive forms of the yeshivas, according to Aggadah, since the time of the biblical patriarchs and their descendants, and the duration of the Egyptian bondage. Mordechai Yudelowitz, however, states that the academic institutions of the Second Temple and Amoraic periods did not have a special name, such as the yeshivah. Nonetheless, as he recognizes, this appears as a matter of the use of various names, such as sidra, metivta, and beit ha-midrash. Yudelowitz, Yeshivat Pumbedita bi-Yemei ha-Amoraim (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Israel Art Printing, 1935), 8. 16 Alexander Guttman, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: The Halakhah from Ezra to Judah I (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2018), 27.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

39

procedures and religious authority as a central institution at that time. Hillel the Elder (110 BCE–10 CE) who was the greatest sage of the Second Temple period said: “The more Torah, the more life; the more yeshiva, the more wisdom” (m. Pirkei ʾAvot 2:7).17 There is a well-known legend of the yeshivas indirectly reflecting the shifting process of Judaism from Temple-centered religion to Torah-centered religion. When Titus, the son of Nero surrounded Jerusalem in 69 CE, the Tanna R. Johanan ben Zakkai (abbr. Ribaz, ‫)ריב״ז‬, moved to Yavne to revive the social, economic, and religious life of the Jewish people.18 Ribaz believed that the Rabbis could achieve the goal of uniting the life and mind of Jewish people through Torah study, but not through a military victory in the war of Jewish independence against the Roman Empire.19 As a result, the Pharisaic rabbis and leaders following Ribaz were successfully able to build a Jewish academic center, i.e., yeshiva for Torah study, and Jewish community in Yavne in place of Jerusalem and its Temple.20 Throughout the history of the yeshivas in the rabbinic period, we can see how much Jews emphasized the mental, legal and spiritual importance of Torah study.21 Torah study was a vital institution for the ultimate survival of Judaism during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods.22 This corroborates that since 17 Ibid. 18 See b. Git. 56a–b. 19 Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, 308–10. However, this story only appears in the Babylonian Talmud. As Jeffrey L. Rubenstein notes, in a manner similar to this story, a metaphoric concept of the “war of Torah” in Babylonian rabbinic sources (e.g. b. Meg. 15b; b. Sanh. 42a) reflects a verbal “give-and-take” involved in debate in “a hostile and combative environment” rather than an actual fight. By contrast, a military metaphor and violent imagery, to a certain extent, more radically appears in Palestinian Talmud and rabbinic sources (e.g., y. Šabb. 1:4). See Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003), 60–61. 20 Ibid. They maintained a close relationship with the similar communities built in Palestine and Babylon. Their community produced excellent scholars, such as R. Akiba and Rabbi Ishmael. Jewish solidarity was maintained through the teachings of these Rabbis. 21 Haim H. Ben-Sasson, A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 1:319. 22 As A. Guttmann, in Rabbinic Judaism in the Making, 27–28, notes, the succeeding beit din ha-gadol, “Great Court,” unlike the Sanhedrin of Jerusalem, had to frequently move to several places (Yavne, Usha, and Shefarʿam, etc.) During these transitional periods, the name of Sanhedrin gradually disappeared due to Roman persecution, and instead the role was conducted under the name beit ha-midrash. As Goodblatt (66) notes, the term yeshivah generally appears to refer to “courts” rather than to “schools” in Palestinian sources and it appears as a Hebrew term, which is identical to the Greek loan word Sanhedrin. In all, this shows that various synonyms, such as beit din, beit hamidrash, and metivta, were a primary and typical model of the yeshiva. See also Goodblatt, 63–107. Since the Second Temple period, their roles became clear, and then they were established in more

40

Chapter 1

the destruction of the Second Temple, the authority of priests, who had a critical role in the service of the Temple sacrifices, gradually waned, whereas rabbinic authority, including scribes and scholars, gradually increased.23 The strength of the priesthood was transferred to that of the Rabbis through a complicated sequence of replacing and extending various components of the priesthood and the Temple sacrifices into Torah study. The Pharisaic rabbis worked particularly hard to formulate a new compilation of laws, and their efforts were regarded as the divine activities of interpreting a profound meaning of the two Torahs: the oral Torah and written Torah.24 Through the study of Torah, they tried not only to make themselves interpreters of the Torah but also to extend the presence and influence of God on their life. The Rabbis compiled the Mishnah, in order to provide Jews with specific information and authentic interpretations regarding the Written Law of Moses from Mt. Sinai.25 The exclusive Jewish interpretative traditions variously flourished through the development of the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds, the exegetical and homiletical midrashim, and Jewish liturgical traditions throughout the history of rabbinic Judaism.26 Although the Mishnah and Talmud were authoritative texts, the authority of Torah ultimately played a key role, not only as a permanent legal statute and criterion for them but also as a unique motivation for Jews to keep their own identity through Jewish history. Historically, as seen, the significance of Torah might have increased in classical rabbinic Judaism due to the shock of the destruction of the Second Temple.27 On the one hand, the Rabbis of the talmudic era assumed that the term Torah in biblical literature refers to the recording of Mosaic revelation.28 concretized forms such as schools and courts respectively, in accordance with their specific roles. The yeshiva was also utilized as a place where synagogue functions were carried out, and sometimes as a place of meeting to make important determinations for the Jewish communities. The fact that Torah was studied in both the synagogues and schools shows the importance of the study of Torah during this period. See Cohen, 223. 23 Schiffman, From Text to Tradition, 167–69. 24 Ibid., 177–81. As Schiffman explains, “In the difficult years after the revolt, when the support of the people at large was so important, the rabbis, in order to guarantee the authority of their teachings, occasionally appealed to the divine origin and nature of the oral law” (181). The Rabbis, in this context, became honored as interpreters of the Law who increased the contents of the Torah. 25 Ibid., 182–200, 220–34. 26 Ibid., 234–39. 27 It is conceivable that despite the harsh exilic experiences, they overcame the difficulties through the Jewish tradition that God and his Torah are always spiritually with them and protecting them. In a sense, they would have needed the glory and presence of God even outside of the Temple realm, i.e., in their practical life in the Diaspora. 28 Levenson, “The Sources of Torah,” 559.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

41

The teaching (‫תורה‬, Torah) of YHWH in a rabbinic midrash (e.g., Tanḥ. Reʾeh 1) refers to the Torah as the Laws of Moses. On the other hand, numerous rabbinic sources also assume that the Pentateuch is “only part of the Torah of Moses” while asserting the authority of “an Oral Torah, which is identical with rabbinic teaching.”29 In m. Pirkei ʾAvot 1:1 ‘Be deliberate in judging, and raise up many disciples, and make a fence for the Torah,’ Torah signifies not only laws and practices but also teachers and judges of the Jewish people, and in m. Sanh. 11:2, Torah signifies the teaching of precepts and Halakhot itself.30 This implies that, in the classical rabbinic tradition, the term ‘Torah’ was not confined to use for the Torah of Moses but had an expansive meaning, such as teaching of the Torah. We can also see significant Hellenistic influences in the way in which Jews understood the nature of Torah. Since the beginning of the Hellenistic Age (approx. 332–63 BCE) after the invasion of Alexander the Great, there were tremendous Greek influences on the Jewish religion, language, architecture, military, government, social forms and so forth.31 Despite the political and religious successes of the Maccabean Revolt, Hellenistic influence continued to increase in the Jewish cultural and literary life. Lee I. Levine describes Hellenistic influences on Jewish life and creativity.32 Similarly, Martin Hengel describes the intellectual influence of Hellenism on Jewish literature by using the accounts of the anonymous Samaritan, the Jewish historian Eupolemus, and the Palestine-Jewish historical writings of Jason of Cyrene.33 Since the period of the Roman Empire (31 BCE), Greek language and culture was influential in the educational systems of the Pharisees and in their interpretative and hermeneutical methods of studying Torah.34 In particular, it is notable that, 29 30

Ibid., 560. Ibid. Simon the Just declares in m. Pirkei ʾAvot 1:2, “Upon three things the world is based: upon the Torah, upon Temple service, and upon deeds of loving-kindness.” This also implies a profound relationship between the teachings of the Torah and the deeds of loving-kindness as well as Temple service. 31 Martin Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine During the Early Hellenistic Period, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), 1:12–32. 32 Lee I. Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence, Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998), 30–31. Levine analyzes three categories: 1) the city of Jerusalem in the late Second Temple period; 2) the Pharisaic-rabbinic culture; 3) the ancient synagogue. 33 Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:83–98. In addition, Alon (339–40, 346) provides a list of Jewish literature in Greek: the works of Philo of Alexandria, the books of the Apocrypha, the works of Josephus Flavius, and the History (now lost) by Justus of Tiberias, as well as the original of Second Maccabees, which was written by Jason of Cyrene. 34 Saul Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1994), 1–3.

42

Chapter 1

as Hugo Mantel and Alon note, the Sanhedrin implies not only a religious and educational institution in Hebrew sources, but also a political, judicial body, as well as a philosophical school in Greek sources.35 This also implies that the Hellenistic influences appear to have significant relevance for the emergence and explosion of new varieties of Judaism, such as Essenes, Sadducees, and Pharisees, the Qumran sect, as well as apocalyptic and Hasidic Judaism.36 Practically, we can find many parallels between Jewish and Greek civilizations and cultures at the time.37 The Second-Temple period works of the Jewish historian Josephus demonstrate the Greek and Hellenistic influence on the culture and language of Jewish Palestine.38 Josephus’s synthesis of Torah and Greek culture can be seen in his rewritten works of biblical history and Hellenized narratives, which include language and ideas that would appeal to Greek-educated readers.39 In addition, as Hengel notes, we can see that during 35

As Hugo Mantel and Sydney B. Hoenig note, the Sanhedrin is synonymous with the Greek word synedrion, which means “assembly” or “governing body.” The Sanhedrin not only appears similar to the meanings and functions of ekklesia but is also identified as “the Great Court” of “seventy-one” members. As Hidary (7) and several scholars note, in reality, the Rabbis might have met in a form of “smaller courts,” rather than “a single centralized Sanhedrin” after 70 CE. Hidary shows the descriptions of the Sanhedrin as a rabbinic idealization in rabbinic and talmudic sources (e.g., m. Sanh. 11:2–4; t. Sanh. 3:4; 7:1; 11:7; 14:12). See Hidary, Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2010), 7, 301–2; Hugo Mantel, Studies in the History of the Sanhedrin (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1961), xi, 55–92; Sidney B. Hoenig, The Great Sanhedrin: A Study of the Origin, Development, Composition and Function of the Bet Din Ha-gadol during the Second Jewish Commonwealth (Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953), 10, 145–47, 157; Guttmann, Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: A Chapter in the History of the Halakhah from Ezra to Judah I, 27–28. As Guttmann also noted, it is reasonable to see that Tannaim in the Second Temple Period regarded the Sanhedrin as an educational body of yeshiva (e.g., b. Sanh. 32b). In addition to these features, Gedalia Alon in The Jews in Their Lands in the Talmudic Age, 43, notes that the Sanhedrin further convey a feature of Hellenistic philosophical school. 36 Levine, Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity, 110–12. 37 It appears clear that Greek was widely spoken and used in business and governmental contacts in the Land of Israel. However, this does not tell us much about the influence of Greek literature, religion, and philosophy. 38 Louis H. Feldman, “Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus,” The Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997): 64–73. In Josephus’ works, we can get considerable information about both his Jewish and Greek background. We are, therefore, able to draw reasonably secure conclusions concerning his methodology of synthesizing the Jewish and Greek sources and what the reactions of his contemporaries were to his works. 39 Ibid., 70. It is evident that Josephus was influenced by Greek tragedy, as can be seen, for example, in the following citation: “As if they were stage masks (Ant. VI. 264 [Thackeray, LCL]).” As Feldman (70) mentions, “his Greek readers would appreciate motifs familiar from Greek tragedy, he rewrites the biblical narrative of the Flood by stressing that

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

43

the late Second Temple and talmudic periods, the Rabbis and the Diaspora Jews, such as Philo, began to compose didactic, historical and apocalyptic writings, which combine the interpretations of Scripture and Hellenistic literature.40 A significant marker of Hellenistic Jewish literature was the Septuagint, which contributed to the development of Christianity by making an authoritative Greek text of the Jewish Scripture.41 Interestingly, Hengel emphasizes the “encounter between Jewish and Hellenistic thought” seen in Jewish wisdom and rabbinic speculations about the nexus of personified Wisdom and Torah in the creation context, which appears in the Greek translations of Prov 8:22–31, and Sirach.42 The substantial interactions between Hellenistic influences and rabbinic exegetical and hermeneutic rules can be gleaned from the midrashic methods which are employed in the Wisdom literature, including the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Qumran scrolls, as well as Philo’s works, which I will examine later in this study.43 Even though the Rabbis fundamentally followed the traditional Jewish positions in their Hebrew or Aramaic works, they remained receptive to the scientific and moral concepts of Greek philosophy and theology.44 This is reflected in the terminology and logical methodology, as well as in the more systematic or metaphysical structures of their expositions of Judaism.45 The Greek philosophical influences on early Jewish sources can be seen in linguistic features of Jewish texts, such as

mankind was full of overweening pride” (hubris, a key word in Greek tragedy) (Ant. I. 72–73). 40 Hengel, 1:83; Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine (New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1974), 47–82; Alan Mendelson, Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982). Mendelson theorizes that Philo was intimately acquainted with the techniques of the Greek rhetoric that were used in the epics and dramatic poetry. 41 Schiffman, 91–92; Feldman, Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus, 42. It is evident that the translators who produced the Septuagint had not only a good knowledge of the Hebrew of the Pentateuch, as well as of the tradition of the Oral Torah but also of the Hellenistic Greek language of the third century BCE. For instance, the use of the singular form of Torah, the avoidance of using the Greek terms used in pagan worship and so forth. 42 Hengel, 1:109–10; 153–69. As Hengel (109–10) notes, the Greek influences on the translations from Hebrew into Greek emerge even in the canonizing process of a diverse collection of the Jewish writings in Second Temple literature. 43 Shiffman, 120–37. These sources may be influenced by Greek philosophy and Greek Wisdom tradition. 44 Shaye J. D. Cohen, “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash,” Prooftexts 2.1 (1982): 18–36. 45 Hermann L. Strack, and G. Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, ed. and trans. Markus Bockmuehl (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991), 116–17.

44

Chapter 1

the Greek and Latin loanwords in rabbinic literature, including the Babylonian and Palestinian Talmuds.46 As Saul Lieberman notes, despite the real conflicts between the Rabbis and Greek culture and influence, the Rabbis also encouraged the learning of the Hellenistic traditions for practical purposes, such as the Jewish settlement plans and social and cultural assimilation in Jewish Palestine and in the Diaspora.47 Against this background, we can infer that the Hellenistic influences on the Jewish scholarly realm were more extensive, i.e., not only on the method by which the Talmud and other rabbinic literature was composed, collected, and redacted, but also on the rabbinic methodology of studying Torah.48 Specifically, Greek philosophical dialectics and intellectual dynamics are analogous to the dialectical characteristics of the Mishnah and both Talmuds.49 Importantly, in midrashim, such as Genesis Rabbah (Gen. Rab.) and Leviticus Rabbah (Lev. Rab.), there are the explicit Greek and Latin loanwords.50 Burton L. Visotzky points out that Lev. Rab. can be regarded not only as “one of the great works of the Western canon in its broadest sense,” but also “a kind of Hellenistic provincial literature” since “reflexes of Hellenism may be found in the attitudes of Lev. Rab. toward Temple and sacrifice, towards the sages, in its use of interpretative hermeneutics, [the dualistic understanding of] the relationship of body and soul, even in attitudes toward women.”51 Lev. Rab. appears to utilize the syllogistic reasoning of the Hellenistic philosophy in citing, compositing, and exegeting the verses of Scripture.52 These features 46

Daniel Sperber, Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature (Jerusalem: Makor Pub., 1982), 82–87. 47 Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 153–63. Lieberman notes that the interactions between sacrificial rites and heathen customs in Greek culture prevailed “in the Mediterranean world during the first century BCE and CE.” (163) In this context, a small number of the Rabbis might have dealt with the Greek language and philosophy in rabbinic literature. The talmudic passage (b. Sotah 49b; b. B. Qam. 82b) notes that the patriarch Rabban Gamaliel II who lived in the latter part of the first century and was a contemporary of Josephus, had “a thousand students, five hundred of whom studied Torah and five hundred of whom studied Greek wisdom.” (Feldman, Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus, 74). 48 Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 153–63. 49 Jacob Neusner, The Reader’s Guide to the Talmud (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 200–11. For instance, m. B. Meẓ. 1:1–2: the rule of the Mishnah, which is cited at the head of the sustained discussion, deals with the dialectical features of the case of two persons who find a garment. 50 Neusner, 313–16; Sperber, 67–81. 51 Burton L. Visotzky, Golden Bells and Pomegranates: Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah Texte Und Studien Zum Antiken Judentum; 94 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003), 179–80. 52 Jacob Neusner, Judaism and Scripture: The Evidence of Leviticus Rabbah, Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 8–9; 33–35. The

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

45

provide explicit evidence of the concurrence between Greek and Jewish linguistic and hermeneutical principles. However, Lieberman and David Daube disagree about the characteristics of the hermeneutical methodologies associated with these Greek terms.53 Lieberman points out that even if the terminology itself was borrowed from the Greeks, the hermeneutical rules appearing in Jewish and Hellenistic traditions, respectively, are not identical.54 In his view, it is difficult to discover direct evidence in the early Jewish sources of exegetical practices reflecting the Hellenistic linguistic and hermeneutical rules. By contrast, Daube asserts that it was a Greek hermeneutical model that leads to these rules being introduced into the rabbinic circles.55 He notes that this model not only covers the domain of rabbinic rhetorics and interpretations but also the domain of talmudic jurisprudence.56 This corroborates that despite the insufficiency of explicit quotations and cross-references in the Greek sources and talmudic literature, the influence of Hellenistic rhetorics, whether in merely terminological applications or in hermeneutical rules, appears within the Pharisaic circles before the first century BCE.57 This also substantiates, whether we are dealing with a lesser or greater receptivity, that Hellenistic influences are found within

53

54

55 56

57

Mishnah adopts the rhetoric of word-for-word or phrase-by phrase exegesis. Lev. Rab. attempts an exegetical and hermeneutical metamorphosis of Leviticus from a biblical, mishnaic, and midrashic from into a philosophical one. Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 1–2. Lieberman notes that “The Jewish leaders felt that not only is ‘Greek Wisdom’ indispensable for proper relations with the Roman government, but that Greek philosophy is a useful instrument in religious discussions, especially with the Gentile Christians who became more and more influential. Yet it is obvious that Greek philosophy was the appanage of only very few outstanding Rabbis” (1). David Daube, “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric,” HUCA 22 (1949): 239–64. Lieberman, Hellenism in Jewish Palestine, 47–82. Interestingly, Lieberman introduces some critical hermeneutic rules “used by the Rabbis to interpret the narrative parts of the Bible,” such as mashal (i.e., “parable or allegory or symbol”), paronomasia (i.e., “playing with homonymous roots”), and gematria (i.e., “computation of the numeric value of letters”) and so forth (esp. 68–72). Daube, 239–64. Daube shows that Hillel rendered the Greek terms into Hebrew terms that had already been in use for generations among the Greeks. Ibid., 240, 251–53, 261–63. Daube emphasizes a widespread Hellenistic influence on the rabbinic rhetorics. He notes that the influence of Hellenistic philosophy was neither confined to “the period of Hillel” (261), nor to “the domain of interpretation” (262). However, his analysis concludes that this is not one-side Hellenistic influence on the Jewish system but reflects a profound interaction between them. Daube, 261–64.

46

Chapter 1

“several primary areas of rabbinic intellectual literary activity likewise genres, ideas, and motifs.”58 Representatively, we can see the methodology of the rabbinic rhetorics of Hillel the Elder, which effectively combines the Hellenistic influences and Hebraic traditions. Hillel believed that Scripture itself not only includes “the tradition of the father” but also needs “a series of rational norms of exegesis making possible a sober clarification and extension of legal provisions.”59 In so doing, he appropriated Greek terminological, rhetorical, and hermeneutical rules while combining them with the Hebraic values and traditions. As Levine has argued, the hermeneutical methods of the Rabbis were “thoroughly Hebraized in spirit as well as form,” supporting the natural progress of Jewish laws.60 Hillel’s approach shows that he tried to solve the fundamental antithesis between law relying on respect for the authority of tradition and law resting on rational considerations, through the help of certain Hellenistic modes of reasoning or rhetorical theory.61 At the same time, it is evident that the Hebraic values in the works of the Rabbis were not compromised, even if the midrashic interpretation of Scripture was profoundly related to the Greek hermeneutic rules and Hellenistic influences, which were operative in the rabbinic practices of formulating the talmudic laws. In this context, Richard Hidary analyzes the idiosyncratic features of the rhetorics of rabbinic authority. As noted earlier, the Rabbis contended that rabbinic scholars became more important than priests as a result of their effective legislation and various rhetorics.62 In this manner Torah study of the Rabbis was made analogous to the Temple sacrifices of the priests. Accordingly, they appropriated other means, such as Torah study and prayers, for achieving the effects of the Temple sacrifice. As Hidary analyzes, they mainly did so by using four rhetorics (comparison, legal fiction, replacement, and appreciation).63 58 Levine, 131. Lieberman shows “how well they were versed in the Greek language and literature” and “the general acquaintance of the Rabbis with Hellenistic culture” (15). For instance, he examines “the house of the patriarch and the house of the head of the academy in Caesarea,” which proves the “inherent factors favoring the spread of Greek culture among the Jewish masses” (27). See Lieberman, Greek in Jewish Palestine, 15–28. 59 Daube, 245. 60 Ibid., 240. 61 Ibid., 246–47. 62 Richard Hidary, “The Rhetoric of Rabbinic Authority: Making the Transition from Priest to Sage,” in Jewish Rhetorics: History, Theory, Practice, ed. Michael B. Donals and Janice W. Fernheimer (Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2014), 20. 63 Ibid. Hidary highlights the work of Kenneth Burke and that of Sabine Maasen and Peter Weingart. See Burke “Four Master Tropes,” The Kenyon Review 3.4 (1941): 421–38 and

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

47

The rhetoric of comparison is a typical method in Greco-Roman narrative, which also appears in late biblical texts and talmudic texts.64 This rhetoric conveys an analogical and metaphoric method of comparing and analyzing the different values.65 As Hidary also analyzes, in the rhetoric of legal fiction, “the realms of Torah and Temple are brought into closer relationship by defining the value of the former in terms of the value of the latter.”66 This shows that Torah and prayer are metaphorically considered like sacrifices.67 This also corroborates that the Rabbis achieved the same goals, which can be achieved by the sacrifices, through the rhetoric of legal fiction based on an allegorical approach to the Torah and its study. The rhetoric of substitution implies that one thing can substitute for the other, i.e., the Temple, to some extent, is replaceable with the synagogue, and Rabbis and Halakah can replace priests

64

65

66 67

Maasen and Weingart, Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge (London; New York: Routledge, 2000), 35. As Hidary notes, Burke’s four master tropes (metaphor, metonymy, synecdoche, and irony) correspond with his four categories of rhetoric, which I will discuss later in this study. Hidary, “Rhetorics of Rabbinic Authority,” 20–21. Hidary notes, “The exercise in comparison (synkrisis) was one of the stages in the progymnasmata in which the student would evaluate the relative worth of two people or things.” Consider the following examples: m. Pirkei ʾAvot 6:5 “Torah is greater than priesthood and kingship,” and in b. Ber. 32b, “Prayer is greater than sacrifices”; Prov 21:3: “To do what is right and just is more desired by the Lord than sacrifice.” These passages show a priority of righteousness and justice over the sacrifices through this rhetoric. Ibid. By this logic, the Rabbis in Tannaitic and Amoraic sources argued that the authority of the Torah is more significant than the authority that priests exercised over the sacrifices in the Temple. After the destruction of the Second Temple, in terms of a hierarchical priority, the Rabbis taught that the study of the laws of the Torah instead of the Temple sacrifices would lead to the fulfillment of the critical commandment of the Torah to love God. See Baruch M. Bokser, “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity,” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983): 47–50. Hidary, 22, 34. A legal fiction implies “one thing as if it were the same as another,” (22) even if that is not actually the case. The rhetoric of legal fiction was “common to both Roman and rabbinic jurisprudence (34). Ibid., 22. In these texts, the Rabbis take over the role of the priests and various halakhic rituals are analogized to Temple rites and can therefore replace them. As Hidary notes, this rhetoric appears as “a persuasive rhetorical device” required in the legal system. Cf. b. Menah. 110a: “When Scholars study Torah in any place, I consider it as if (keillu) they have burned incense to Me.” In a manner different from the rhetoric of comparison, this rhetoric also leads to the conclusion that the Rabbis and Halakah are “functionally equivalent” to priests and Temple sacrifices instead of reducing the significance of priests. Acts of loving-kindness (Hos 6:6) are an example that conveys both legal fiction and comparison, insofar as they are equivalent to the sacrifices in the Temple for the atonement of sins. See ʾAbot R. Nat. A 4, B 8; b. Ber. 17a.

48

Chapter 1

and Temple rites.68 This rhetoric also offers a hermeneutic (analogical and allegorical) apparatus not only for achieving religious values and truths (e.g., holiness, atonement, and communion with God) even without the Temple but also for shifting the judicial authority from the priests to the Rabbis.69 Furthermore, the rhetoric of appropriation extends the priesthood and the Temple sacrifices to the requirement of laypeople.70 This shows that the Rabbis appropriate the acts and meanings of the Temple rites to the rabbinic Halakah by viewing Temple sacrifices symbolically.71 The four rhetorical categories, which cover 68

69

70

71

Hidary, 25–28. For instance, Dt 17:8–9, 31:9 and m. Pirkei ʾAvot 1:1 mention the succession of transmission of the Torah that was handed to the priests and the elders (sages) from Moses. In m. Meg. 3:3, the sanctity of synagogue is substituted for that of the Temple. It is mentioned in m. Pirkei ʾAvot 3:3 that “the food at one’s table is substituted for a sacrifice.” Martha Himmelfarb, A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism, Jewish Culture and Contexts (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), 170–73. In the architecture of the synagogue, there are dedicatory inscriptions, which appear to be modeled after the Temple. The rabbinic rhetoric in m. Hor. 3:8 utilizes the biblical descriptions of the Tabernacle in order to explain its relationship with the Temple. Steven Fine, in “From Meeting House to Sacred Realm: Holiness and the Ancient Synagogue” in Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World, ed. Steven Fine and Yeshiva University Museum (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996), 27, also notes, “For the early Rabbinic Sages, synagogues were the institutional focal point for the reconstruction of Judaism.” He explains that synagogue is an institution infused with Temple qualities, while calling attention to the similarity between synagogue and Temple in t. Sukk. 4:6 and in Tannaitic descriptions of the Temple. The Sukkah is similarly considered a miniature of the Temple. This implies the synagogue instead of the Temple became the place of the presence of God. Interestingly, the activities in the synagogue appear to be identified with the activities in the Temple. It should also be added that after the destruction of Temple, the table at one’s home, i.e., an alternative sacrificial object and place can be substituted for the Temple altar to attain atonement. Cf. y. Sukk. 2:7 (52a). Hidary, 28–29. Hidary notes that the most explicit example of this rhetoric of appropriation can be gleaned from the enactment of shofer and lulav in the Sukkot, which are extended into outside the Temple. This shows how the Rabbis compared taking the four species in the Sukkot, something which is applicable into the rabbinic system, to offering a sacrifice. Hidary, 27–33. The strictness of the rabbinic purity laws can be gleaned from the Pharisees’ complaints about Jesus’ disciples eating with unwashed hands in Mk 7:1–4. Cf. b. Ber. 53b; Lev 20:7. However, m. Ḥul. 2:5 implies that the purity laws were no longer the domain of the priests but became a domain of the Rabbis. This shows that the Rabbis appropriated various aspects of priestly purity laws including the eating of foods in a state of purity. In this sense, regarding the Passover sacrifice, the Mishnah appropriates the eating of unleavened bread on the first night even in the Diaspora without the Temple. This means that the Temple ritual is extended to a new and substitutive ritual. The Rabbis, furthermore, extended purity laws to unrelated areas, while utilizing them to support their own system and authority. As Hidary explains, they eventually became the specialists in the priestly system of purity, helping their followers survive in the traumatic

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

49

various hermeneutical traditions from the Tannaim and Amoraim, helps us understand the shifting process in which Torah study of the Rabbis was centralized instead of the Temple sacrifices of the priests.72 The four rabbinic rhetorics, which coincided and mutually reinforced each other in subtle ways, give a critical insight not only into the relationship between Torah study of the Rabbis and the Temple sacrifices of the priests but also into how the Rabbis utilized various rhetorical and hermeneutical strategies for understanding the reality of sacrifices in Torah and prayer, and for creating their new meanings in the Diaspora and supporting their own system and authority. On the one hand, these rabbinic rhetorics demonstrate some critical reasons and implications of why rabbinic Judaism emphasized and concentrated on the concept of Torah and its study instead of the Temple sacrifices despite the huge Greek philosophical influences, which were inevitable on the life of Jewish people and the Jewish concepts of Torah and God. On the other hand, despite the Rabbis’ emphasis on the rabbinic conception of Torah as “divine law,” which, as Christine Hayes discussed, conveys the human elements (i.e., the intrinsic rationality of Torah and its contents and the fluidity of Talmud), a theological and philosophical conceptualization of Torah, which was mainly influenced by the Hellenistic (Stoic and Neoplatonic) and Greco-Roman thought and culture, explicitly appears in rabbinic sources, which I will examine in detail in the study.73 This corroborates that while emphasizing the importance of Torah study and its halakhic matters and replacing the critical meanings of the Temple sacrifices during the transitional periods, the Rabbis

72 73

transition periods. Through the rhetoric of appropriation, the rabbinic authority appropriates priestly rites in relation to purity laws for their own halakhic ends through the extension of the sanctity of sacrificial rites beyond the Temple’s boundaries. Ibid., 33–34. As Christine Hayes notes, the Rabbis primarily valued a “positive-human law” which was critical in the Greco-Roman legal tradition, in the conceptualization of Torah. The Rabbis had more focus on the development of the rabbinic concept of “divine law,” which conveys the human elements (i.e., the intrinsic rationality of Torah and its contents and the fluidity of Talmud), than on a divine-natural law which was influenced by the Hellenistic (Stoic and Neoplatonic) and Greco-Roman thought and culture. See Hayes, What’s Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2015), 166–95, 272–328. As Hayes also notes, this shows that the Rabbis weighed the halakhic (formal and performative) elements of divine law (i.e., Torah-law of the Talmud) rather than a philosophical concept of Torah, i.e., “ontological or mind-independent reality” of Torah (196), which is theologically hypostatized and personified in relation to the concepts of Wisdom and Logos. Nonetheless, as Hayes recognizes, the Rabbis did not ignore the significance of a conceptual change of Torah while implicitly promoting the development of its theological, philosophical, and mystical implications which I will examine, in turn, in this study.

50

Chapter 1

implicitly have attempted, in earnest, to create a new theological and philosophical concept of God and Torah, as I will argue, through the utilization of the Hellenistic philosophies and ideas. In particular, the conceptual (theological and philosophical) change of Torah implicitly can be gleaned from the rabbinic concepts of Torah in the hypostatic notions, such as memra and shekhinah, which were manifest in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods which I will examine in greater detail in the study. This study eventually will substantiate not only a synthesis of the rabbinic rhetorics and Hellenistic influences on the development of the concepts of God and Torah but also a dramatically shifting process from the biblical concept of Torah to a conceptually combined form of the rabbinic, philosophical, and mystical notions of Torah, thereby dynamically formulating the hypostatic notions of Torah and their images, which I will discuss, in turn, in the study. On the basis of this historical and conceptual backdrop of Torah in the Second Temple period, prior to diving into the examination of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, it is briefly worth noting that the concepts of Wisdom and Logos, are crucial for understanding the developmental process of the philosophical and mystical concepts of Torah, and the dynamic formulation of the images of Torah. The concept of Torah in Hellenistic Judaism appears as interchangeable with these philosophical and stoic concepts as a result of the terminological similarities between Torah and the Word (λόγος) of God or the Law (νόμος). Philo’s Logos primarily appears as a conceptually synthesized form of the hypostatic notions of Torah, i.e., one that combines between the biblical concepts of the Word of God (Law or Torah) of Moses and the Greek philosophical concept of λόγος or the Stoic concept of νόμος which signifies a natural law in the cosmos given by the divine creator.74 These terms occasionally appear in Greek-speaking Jewish sources in Aramaic or Hebrew and which are used as translations or synonyms of Torah.75 This shows a dramatic change of the biblical concept of Torah, in that it is not limited to the corpus of the Law of Moses. Philo’s Logos also has a critical implication for discovering a missing and profound link, i.e., a unique Jewish exegetical practice which combines the concept of the Logos in relation to the Torah, which is the focal point of Wisdom in the Hellenistic and Palestinian 74

75

The Torah of Moses in Septuagint is “almost always translated as νόμος” but in a sense distinctive from “the Nomos of Solon (which) is the traditional law of Athens.” Generally, νόμος signifies a natural law in the cosmos given by the divine creator. See Hindy Najman, “Torah and Tradition,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 1316. Najman, “Torah and Tradition,” 1316. Cf. Boaz Cohen, Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study, 2 vols. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966), 1:28–29.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

51

Jewish traditions.76 The relationship in Philo’s thought between Logos and personified Wisdom is explicit evidence of the derivation of a hypostatic notion of Torah from Wisdom literature.77 The relationship between Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom is also profoundly related to the later Johannine Logos of early Christian tradition. Additionally, the relationship between Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom reverberates in other hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, which reflect rabbinic and Jewish mystical concepts, such as memra and shekhinah, manifest in rabbinic, targumic, and late antique Jewish mystical literature, which I will examine later in this study. This eventually leads to a uniquely shifting process, placing the Hebraic values, from the biblical concept of Torah, first over the Hellenistic influences, even as a theologically and philosophically combined form of the hypostatic notions of Torah emerges. On the basis of this observation and examination, I will delve into various hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah, which were mentioned above, and their relationships and interactions as they are manifest in the early Jewish and Christian sources during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. 2

Various Derivative Forms of Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

2.1 Personified Wisdom in Proverbs To begin with, I examine personified Wisdom in the book of Proverbs of the Hebrew Bible. Personified Wisdom is understood as the oldest form of the hypostatic notions related to the concept of Torah.78 According to the descriptions of the collections of Proverbs themselves (Prov 1:1, 10:1; 25:1), the primary

76 David Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979), 38, 317; Cornelis Bennema, “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition in Intertestamental Judaism: Origins, Developments and Characteristics,” Tyndale Bulletin 52.1 (2001): 73–74. 77 Harry A. Wolfson, Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968), 1:5–9, 48, 254–55. Wolfson (254–55) mentions, in reference to Leg. I. xix, 65 that “it was quite natural for Philo to use also the term Wisdom as the equivalent of Logos.” This implies that the Jewish hypostatic notions were condensed and consolidated in Philo’s Logos. 78 As noted in the Introduction, I do not claim chronologically the primacy of Torah over Wisdom and Logos. But I think that from the phenomenological perspective of Jewish thought, Wisdom and Logos can be described as a hypostatic notion of Torah.

52

Chapter 1

author of the Book of Proverbs is King Solomon (mid tenth century BCE).79 Yet, as Richard J. Clifford explains, “Proverbs is an anthology of collections and appendixes, which were composed and collected from the earliest days of the monarchy (ca. 1000 BCE) to the end of the sixth century BCE, or to the Babylonian Exile and thereafter in the opinions of many scholars.”80 James L. Crenshaw specifically classifies “the actual dates of the various literary complexes that make up the wisdom corpus in the Proverbs” as follows: some canonical proverbs, which may have preceded the monarchy; others, which flourished during the exilic period; and Prov 1–9 as the latest collection, which was composed in the post-exilic period.81 Indeed, the majority of scholars insist that the bulk of the sayings of Proverbs were composed in the pre-exilic or exilic period, while most of the instructions and speeches in Prov 1–9, as well as the final editing were composed in the post-exilic period.82 However, it is difficult to determine the date of the book of Proverbs by only the literary criteria, since this book also contains different linguistic characteristics, such as Aramaisms.83 Michael V. Fox cautions, “The simplistic periodization 79 Richard J. Clifford, The Wisdom Literature (Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998), 1. Crenshaw notes that Proverbs, in large part Ecclesiastes, and Wisdom of Solomon are attributed to King Solomon. The author of Proverbs (e.g., Prov 25:1) alludes to chronological evidence of the collection of the men of King Hezekiah. See James L. Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction, 3rd ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010), 5. 80 Clifford, The Wisdom Literature, 42. 81 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 52. 82 Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, 1st ed. (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999), 4, 28. Clifford (28–29) explains, “The original Hebrew manuscripts of Proverbs have not survived, but we have two fragments from Cave Four at Qumran: 4QProva (= 4Q102) written in an early Herodian formal script (ca. 30–1 BCE), contains 1:27–2:1; 4QProvb (= 4Q103), written in a late Herodian formal script (ca. 50 CE), preserves vestiges of two columns: 13:6–9; 14:5–10, 12–13; 14:31–15:8; 15:20–31” (28). “A different Hebrew recension of Proverbs was evidently the basis for the Greek translation of the second century BCE, which is known as the Septuagint” (29). As Clifford also notes, the translations of Proverbs include Syriac, targum, and Latin (28–30). 83 As Clifford, in Proverbs, 4, notes, “Proverbs has some Aramaisms but these in themselves are no argument for a late date, for they are also found sporadically in preexilic texts. A large number in a book, however, would suggest a postexilic date when Aramaic became the language of commerce and government.” In this vein, some scholars, such as Harold C. Washington and Roger N. Whybray, date Prov 1–9 to the Persian period. See Harold C. Washington, Wealth and Poverty in the Instruction of Amenemope and the Hebrew Proverbs (SBLDS 142; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 118–22; Whybray, Wisdom in Proverbs: The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9 (London: SCM Press, 1965), 106. By contrast, some scholars, such as Georg Fohrer, Al Wolters, and Hengel, argue that in Proverbs there are some terms, such as ‫( ֵאטּון‬7:16), and ‫צֹופּיָ ה‬ ִ (31:27), which have been considered Greek loanwords. See Georg Fohrer, Introduction to the Old Testament, trans. David E. Green (New

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

53

is contradicted at every step by the complaints of the pre-exilic prophetic and Deuteronomic authors.”84 In this sense, Crenshaw suggests that “the book of Proverbs may not have been complete until Hellenistic times (339–198), although containing much older literature.”85 Hengel and Alice M. Sinnott also assume that the book of Proverbs might have been formulated from the beginning of the exilic period until the post-exilic period and possibly even the early Hellenistic period.86 These scholarly opinions suggest that the composition York: Abingdon, 1968), 319. Al Wolters notes that the allusion to Greek sophia in ‫צֹופּיָ ה‬ ִ can be regarded as “a cleverly veiled barb in a religious polemic,” and shows a poetic strategy to present a Hebraic wisdom, as opposed to a Hellenistic wisdom. See Wolters, “Ṣôpiyyâ (Prov 31:27) as Hymnic Participle and Play on Sophia,” Journal of Biblical Literature 104.4 (1985): 577–87. However, Washington (121–22) notes that “the author knows enough about Hellenistic wisdom to engage in name-calling, but clearly does not operate, even as a resister, in a Hellenized intellectual environment.” He (119) also points out that “Hebrew ‫ ֵאטּון‬is now recognized to be a loan word in Semitic from Egyptian ydmy.” In this vein, he casts doubt on the influence of Greek thought on the book of Proverbs by noting that “the language of Proverbs suggests that the composition of the book was essentially finished during the Persian era.” Christine R. Yoder (34), by analyzing these terms, also asserts that “there are neither Greek loanwords nor expressions necessarily derived from Greek thought in Proverbs 1–9 and 31:1–31.” See Yoder, Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31 (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2014), 32–34. In this vein, Clifford (5) also concludes that “there are no Grecisms in the book, which suggests a pre-Hellenistic date (before 333 BCE). In sum, the book cannot be dated with certainty from its language.” Nonetheless, as Washington (120) recognizes, “The penetration of Hellenistic culture deep into northern Palestine before Alexander’s arrival,” appears in other evidence, such as the spread of Greek names and the Samaritan papyri at Wadi Daliyeh in pre-Hellenistic Palestine. Hengel (1:61) notes that the use of Greek names was widespread among the Semitic populations of pre-Hellenistic Palestine, and it reflects the advance of the Greek language in Palestine in the early Hellenistic period. Despite the uncertainty of Greek loanwords in the book of Proverbs, Hengel (1:155–57) tries to show linguistic evidence of Hellenistic influences on the book by tracing the evidence of an encounter of Jewish wisdom with Hellenistic wisdom which appears in the texts (e.g., Prov 8 and 9). In this sense, Hengel (1:153–54) assumes that “the independent wisdom hymn Prov 8:22–31, which was probably worked in at a relatively late stage” (154), i.e., around the early Hellenistic period, at the latest, by “the middle of the third century BCE.” See also Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:61–65. In addition, Michael E. Stone (28) notes, “What is evident already, from the Wadi Daliyeh texts and even more from the Zenon papyri, is that the process of Hellenization was well under way at the end of the fourth and early in the third centuries BCE, and started to some extent, even before Alexander the Great.” See Stone, Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980), 27–28. 84 Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1st ed. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 343. 85 Crenshaw, Old Testament Wisdom, 5. 86 See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:153–57; Alice M. Sinnott, The Personification of Wisdom (England: Ashgate Pub., 2005), 6–7. Despite the lack of linguistic evidence, when

54

Chapter 1

of Proverbs had a long developmental process that occurred over the course of both the pre-exilic and post-exilic period, and that the influence of Jewish wisdom speculation was widespread until the early Hellenistic period.87 It is crucial to note that the wisdom of Proverbs is of two distinctive kinds: one may be characterized as didactic or practical wisdom, and the other as speculative or personified Wisdom.88 The religious and moral instructions in Proverbs in accord with the purpose of Proverbs, which is directly explained in Prov 1:2–4, represent wisdom not only as an important compositional and theological source but also as a hypostatic notion, which is substantially identified with God.89 The elements of practical wisdom are found throughout all the chapters of Proverbs. Yet the representations of wisdom in Prov 1–9 appear to be different from Prov 10–31. As most scholars analyzed, the final editor(s) of the book of Proverbs introduced the basic premises in Prov 1–9 to the earlier considering various (historical and ideological) contexts (e.g., dynamic interactions between Hellenistic and Jewish cultures in pre-Hellenistic Palestine), the possibility of the date of its final editing in the early Hellenistic period cannot be ignored. In this sense, it appears to be reasonable to accept that there were several authors who wrote and finally edited the collections of Proverbs in the early Second Temple period, which includes, at the latest, the early Hellenistic period, i.e., the fourth century BCE. 87 Samuel L. Adams, Proverbs, Book of, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 1103; Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:151–57; Clifford, Proverbs, 1, 5–6, 31. Clifford suggests that “The book of Proverbs consists of several collections of instructions, speeches, and two-line sayings” (1). As Clifford notes, Proverbs also seems to have influenced “the rabbinic sources, such as Pirqe. Abot, the Saying of the Father’s, a collection of sayings” such as “the men of the Great Assembly between fifth to the third century BCE,” and “the commentary in Abot de Rabbi Nathan in the Mishnah, and the descendants of Rabbi Judah the Prince in the third century CE” (31). 88 Daniel J. Harrington, in Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996), 8, argues that Proverbs provides significant understandings and vocabularies to other wisdom literature, such as Qumran texts, Qoheleth, and Sirach, as well as the Wisdom of Solomon. 89 Prov 1:2–4: “(2) That men may appreciate wisdom and discipline, may understand words of intelligence (3) May receive training in wise conduct, in what is right, just and honest (4) That resourcefulness may be imparted to the simple, to the young man knowledge and discretion.” (NAB). On the meaning of hypostasis, see the discussions in Pauliina Remes, “Neoplatonism,” 48–49; John P. Anton, “Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of Hypostasis in Plotinus,” The Review of Metaphysics 31 (2) (1977): 258–71. In Plotinus’s metaphysic system, these are higher spiritual principles, i.e., hypostases such as the Soul and the Intellect which emanate from the One. In Christian theology, a hypostasis represents one of the three distinct substances or persons in the essence and unity of God. In other words, the term hypostasis is used for representing a person of “three hypostases, Father, Son, and Spirit” in relation to the conception of “one ousia” in the Trinity. See Erwin Fahlbusch and G. W. Bromiley, The Encyclopedia of Christianity (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 542–43. I will discuss in turn and in detail the aspects of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Wisdom, Logos, memra, and shekhinah, later in this study.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

55

wisdom instructions in Prov 10–31. It also appears evident that, as Clifford argues, the editor(s) implicitly intended to connect the “father-son” instructions to the speeches of personified Wisdom (Prov 1:20; 8:1–36) to Prov 1–9 through a literal, metaphorical or allegorical approach.90 The “father-son” instructions, which focus on the practical wisdom in Prov 1–9, appear analogous to the instructions (wisdom and authority) of personified Wisdom to the audiences.91 Even within Prov 1–9, as most scholars agree, the personification of wisdom in Prov 1, 8–9 appears to be different from the practical wisdom in Prov 2–7.92 The wisdom in Prov 5 and 7 seems as a general literary expression without a mythological background in contrast to Woman Wisdom in Prov 8–9. The change of the concept of Wisdom that can be detected within Prov 1–9, involves a shift from a motif of practical wisdom to a symbolic motif of personified Wisdom.93 It is also notable that there is a profound nexus between the concepts of wisdom and Torah in the book of Proverbs. The primary concept of Torah in the book of Proverbs appears to have a didactic meaning, such as “instruction” or “teaching,” in accordance with the lexical meaning of the Hebrew word “Torah,” which was used in a wide variety of contexts and has “a rich set of connotations in early Jewish texts.”94 This is seen in examples, such as the 90

Clifford, “Proverbs 1–9 as Instruction for a Young Man and for ‘Everyman’” in When the Morning Stars Sang, ed. Scott C. Jones, Christine R. Yoder, and Choon L. Seow (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2018), 129–35; Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 319–59; idem, Proverbs 10–31, 902–17; Ronald E. Murphy, Proverbs, Word Biblical Commentary 22 (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998); Tava Forti, “The Isa Zara in Proverbs 1–9: Allegory and Allegorization,” Hebrew Studies 48 (2007): 89–100. These scholars analyzed a metaphorical, allegorical, or analogical relationship between parents’ instructions and those of personified Wisdom. 91 Clifford, “Proverbs 1–9 as Instruction,” 135–41. 92 Michael V. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 343; Clifford, Proverbs, 5–6. The dating of Prov 1, 8–9 which describes the personification of wisdom, is a controversial issue as some scholars, such as Hengel, Sinnott, extend its dates to the early Hellenistic period. See Hengel, Judaism and Hellenism, 1:153–57; Sinnott, The Personification of Wisdom, 3–7, 171–72. In my view, it is reasonable to assume that Prov 2–7 is dated to the exilic or early post-exilic period, especially around the Persian period, while Prov 8–9 is from the Persian period (the sixth and fifth century BCE), at the latest, to early Hellenistic period (the fourth century BCE). 93 Bernd U. Schipper, “When Wisdom Is Not Enough! The Discourse on Wisdom and Torah and the Composition of the Book of Proverbs,” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 75–76. 94 Najman, “Torah and Tradition,” 1316. Before the canonization of the Hebrew Bible, these texts may have been called as the Torah. Levenson, in “The Sources of Torah,” 570, notes three sources of Torah from Ps 119: 1) “received tradition, passed on most explicitly by teachers” (vv. 99–100); 2) “cosmic or natural law” (vv. 89–91); 3) “unmediated divine teaching” (e.g., vv. 26–29).

56

Chapter 1

following: ‫ּתֹורת ִא ֶּמָך‬ ַ (Prov 1:8), ‫ּבנִ י‬, ְ ‫ּתֹור ִתי‬ ָ (Prov 3:1), ‫ּתֹורת ִא ֶּמָך‬ ַ (Prov 6:20), ‫תֹורה‬ ָ ְ‫ו‬ ָ ְ‫( ו‬Prov 7:2). As Levenson notes, the meaning of Torah ‫( אֹור‬Prov 6:23), and ‫תֹור ִתי‬ is not limited to the Mosaic Torah (i.e., the Pentateuch), but refers to “a broader tradition of extrabiblical law and narrative, authoritative interpretation, and cosmic wisdom” throughout the Second Temple period.95 This implies that the concept of Torah in Proverbs, rather than the juridical and ritual laws of Moses, appears to be related to the concept of wisdom, which is derived from the revelation of God.96 In this context, Michael A. Fishbane and Hindy Najman also argue that this feature alludes to not only a conceptual development of Torah by Deuteronomic reworkings of earlier wisdom traditions in the Second Temple period but also a theological change regarding Wisdom in relation to the Torah.97 It is notable that Torah appears to be profoundly related to or even identical with Wisdom (e.g., Ps 119; Prov 1, 3 and 8; Sir 24; Wis 7 and 8) in early Jewish texts.98 This concept of Torah in relation to Wisdom alludes to a sapiential sense of “the counsel of a sage” derived from the wisdom and revelation of God, rather than the juridical and ritual laws of Moses.99 This alludes to a Jewish wisdom speculation, which combines the sapiential and covenantal

95 Levenson, “The Sources of Torah,” 566–67. Clifford, in Proverbs, 5, points out that the meaning of Torah, including “Law” and “command,” in Proverbs does not appear to be directly related to “the Torah of Moses which would presuppose the missions of Ezra and Nehemiah in the fifth century BCE.” 96 Clifford (5) notes that the primary meaning of Torah reflects “prudent advice (which is nonetheless considered inspired and from God).” Clifford (49–53, 82–90) further explains that it reflects “teachings” as part of a teacher-disciple or father-son relationship in Ancient Near Eastern culture. Washington implies that the meaning of Torah in Proverbs appears to be related to the laws and post-exilic prohibitions against marriages with foreign women in the books of Ezra and Nehemiah, which appear in manner similar to the polemic against the strange woman in the book of Proverbs. See also Washington, “The Strange Woman (‫אשה זרה‬/‫ (נכריה‬of Proverbs 1–9 and Post-Exilic Judean Society,” in Second Temple Studies Vol. 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period, ed. Tamara C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1994), 233–37. These implications of Torah appear to be compatible with the meanings of “teachings” and “instructions.” 97 Michael A. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 213–16; Hindy Najman, Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003), 20–31. Fishbane and Najman show the evidence of Deuteronomic reworkings in the various examples of rewritten Bible and pseudepigrapha, which proliferated in the Second Temple period. 98 Najman, “Torah and Tradition,” 1317; Matthew J. Goff, “Wisdom Literature,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2010), 1341. 99 Levenson, “The Sources of Torah,” 566–67.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

57

theologies with the Mosaic (or Deuteronomistic) concept of Torah.100 This substantiates not only remarkable evidence of a Torah-centered tradition influenced by Deuteronomistic Laws in respect to didactic wisdom but also a conceptual development of Torah through the dynamic interactions with the concept of Hellenistic wisdom in the Second Temple period. In this vein, Bernd U. Schipper also notes that, in the book of Proverbs, there appears to be a profound nexus between the didactic Torah and personified Wisdom based on an intertextual comparison between Prov 3, 6 and Prov 7, 8.101 Indeed, the degree of the distinction between the didactic Torah and wisdom (or personified Wisdom) in Prov 3, 6, 7 appears to be gradually attenuated in Prov 8.102 In addition, we can see the changing meanings and uses of ‫ִּבינָ ה‬ (binah) and ‫( ָח ְכ ָמה‬ḥokhmah) between Prov 3, 6, and Prov 7, 8. Specifically, a conceptual change in the meaning of ḥokhmah in Prov 7:4 (a verse which refers to ‫ ִּבינָ ה‬and ‫ ) ָח ְכ ָמה‬and the usages of Wisdom and Torah of Prov 3 and 6, show explicit evidence of a shifting process from the practical motif of wisdom, which is related to didactic Torah, to the symbolic motif of Wisdom. In this sense, Schipper suggests the dynamic interactions (i.e., a theological conflict, or debate) between the Deuteronomic Torah and the concept of Wisdom in the process of the final editing and composition of the book of Proverbs.103 On the basis of this examination, I will discuss in greater detail the intertextual, exegetical, and theological relationships of personified Wisdom to Torah in this study. It is notable that Clifford summarizes the scholarly research on personified Wisdom as divided into four theories all of which concern the processes of adaptation of ancient Near Eastern literature: “1) Wisdom is a 100 Ibid., 566–71; M. Weinfeld, Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972), 244–319. This alludes to not only a possibility of divine inspiration, even after the canonical prophets but also a witness to the rabbinic concept of non-Pentateuchal Torah. 101 Schipper, “When Wisdom Is Not Enough!” 75–76. Schipper argues that the main strategy of the author of Prov 31, which is generally considered to be the final redactor’s chapter, is to intentionally reduce the theological position of wisdom from the heavenly level (i.e., personified Wisdom) to the earthly level (i.e., practical wisdom). This is indicative of the author’s theological intention, which appears in scribal and exegetical practices regarding personified Wisdom. 102 See Schipper, in “Wisdom is not enough!” 63, notes the conceptual changes and relationships of Torah and personified Wisdom in Prov 6, 7, and 8. In particular, personified Wisdom in Prov 7 seems to play a critical role in introducing her in Prov 8, 9. See also Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 343. 103 Ibid.; Schipper, 75–76. Schipper asserts that based on a reception of Deuteronomy in Prov 1–9, the concept of wisdom appears to serve as a hermeneutic tool for a didactic concept of Torah.

58

Chapter 1

hypostasis of Yahweh; 2) Wisdom as a Syro-Palestinian or Egyptian goddess such as the Goddess Ma’at, Isis and Canaanite Goddess and so on;104 3) Wisdom as the Mesopotamian divine or semi-divine ummānu in terms of a mythology; 4) Wisdom as a pure literary personification.”105 Clifford assesses the formative 104 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 331. As an example of an extended allegorical personification of an abstract virtue, Fox notes the Late Egyptian tale, in which truth and falsehood are meant as “Two Brothers in Egyptian literature (Pap. Chester Beatty II; AEL 2.211–14).” The allegorical personification also does not indicate hypostatization in itself. In this sense, Fox notes that the literary, mythological, and real-life background images entered the portrayal of Woman Wisdom needs not amount to a personification of Wisdom. In addition, many scholars discussed the origin of personified Wisdom )‫) ָאמֹון‬, which is derived from the Egyptian goddess Ma’at. See Pierre Bonnard, La sagesse en personne annoncée et venue: Jésus Christ (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1966), 21–22. Mitchell Dahood, “Proverbs 8, 22–31: Translation and Commentary,” CBQ (1968): 512–21; Rogers III, “The Meaning and Significance of the Hebrew word ‫ אמון‬in Proverbs 8, 30,” 208–21; Achim Müller, Proverbs 1–9: The New Clothes of Wisdom (Berlin; New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2000), 236–37. Ma’at, the daughter of Re, the sun god, is depicted as a young woman rather than the son or infant (or lap child) image of Prov 8:30. However, Ma’at in Egyptian is not linguistically equivalent to the Hebrew amun. In addition to these hypothetical models of personified Wisdom, it would be worthwhile to further investigate, as I found in my study of the history of the gods of ancient Egypt, an etymological and mythological relationship between personified Wisdom )‫ ) ָאמֹון‬and Amun, as a divine figure, who is personified as the king of the gods in Egyptian sources. See the similar usages of the Egyptian god Amo(u)n, Jer 46:25; Nah 3:8. See E. A. Wallis. Budge, The Gods of the Egyptians: Or, Studies in Egyptian Mythology (Chicago, IL: Open Court Pub., 1904), 137–45; Richard Wilkinson, The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt (New York: Thames, 2003), 92–97; Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, ed. James B. Pritchard (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950), 368. Amun first was stationed in Thebes in the twelfth dynasty and antedates the Amarna Revolution. Specifically, Amun, which means “hidden” or “concealed,” appears as a symbol of Egyptian polytheism (especially triad gods) at the pinnacle of Egyptian civilization during the New Kingdom period. Amun, who was primarily considered a god of war in the beginning of the New Kingdom and was successively identified with all other Egyptian deities. Amun became the king of the gods by the 18th Dynasty. In the creation hymns regarding Amun, such as A Hymn to Amun-Re and Amun (Amon) as the Sole God, Amun appears not only as a creator god or solar god in a monotheistic manner but also as a symbolized and personified being (e.g., a warrior or king) from the divine. In addition, Amun appears as a personified god or king of gods. This conveys a monotheistic feature in a manner similar to Aten who was prominent in the Amarna Revolution. Jan Dietrich also implied the possibility of an etymological nexus between the Egyptian god Amun and personified Wisdom )‫) ָאמֹון‬. See Dietrich, “Die Weisheit Bei Gott: Proverbien 8,30 Aus Religionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive,” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129.4 (2017): 587–92 (esp. 589, note 16). Against this backdrop, it would be meaningful to examine in detail the etymological, philological, and intertextual nexuses between Amun and personified Wisdom (‫) ָאמֹון‬, as well as the Mesopotamian ummānu. I hope to offer, in a separate study, a detailed analysis of this subject. 105 Clifford, Proverbs, 23.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

59

and developmental process of personified Wisdom in Proverbs in conjunction with Wisdom literature in the ancient Near East by summarizing various scholarly theories of personified Wisdom, which were formulated against the backdrop of the processes of adoptation of ancient Near Eastern literature.106 Specifically, by analyzing these literary and textual features, Clifford connects the identity of personified Wisdom to the term ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22, as an ongoing polemical issue. He states that ‫ ָאמֹון‬, derives its meanings from the Akaddian ummānu, which means “sage,” a term which is close in meaning to “teacher.”107 Clifford further investigates the relationship of ‫( ָאמֹון‬which signifies or is identical with personified Wisdom) and the post-Flood ummānu as a sage or master, which is derived from the Akkadian apkallu, who was the god of wisdom in the Mesopotamian mythology.108 Indeed, the Mesopotamian apkallu-ummānu traditions etymologically and philologically appear as the origin of the personification of wisdom in the book of Proverbs in light of the Mesopotamian tradition.109 By this logic, Clifford identifies ‫ ָאמֹון‬with personified Wisdom as a sage-like or mature heavenly figure.110 Clifford’s argument shows that the images of the personified (Woman) Wisdom figure in Prov 8 and 9 appear to be derived from the genre of ancient epics of Mesopotamian mythology.111 Like 106 Ibid., 23–28. Clifford summarizes the research, since Gunkel viewed “the Bible against its ancient Near East literary background.” Cf. Ronald E. Murphy, “The Personification of Wisdom,” in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton, ed. John Day, Robert Gorden, and Hugh G. M. Williamson (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 222–33. 107 Ibid., 99–101. As Clifford explains, Akaddian ummānu refers to wisdom, understood as having a pedagogical dimension, which is taught by the institutions of king, the scribe, and the family (father and mother) in the ancient Near Eastern culture. 108 Ibid., 26–27. The epithet apkallu given to Marduk means the sage of the gods, and the epithet ummānu designates their human, post-flood counterparts. This shows a process of transmission of heavenly wisdom to the human beings. Maurizio Viano analyzes the features and images of apkallu in Mesopotamian cuneiform sources, as divine mediators, who convey scribal and mythological features. See Viano, “Representations of Wisdom in Mesopotamian Cuneiform Sources,” in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, ed. Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez (Leuven: Peeters, 2021), 43–58. 109 Ibid., 24–28. The Babyloniaca of Berossus and the van Dijk list of kings and their sages (which is dated to 164 BCE) attest to the mythology of the apkallu and ummanu. These translations are available in Stanley M. Burstein, The Babyloniaca of Berossus (Malibu, CA: Undena, 1978) and the van Dijk list of kings and their sages in R. Caplice, Background of Old Testament History: Mesopotamian Texts (Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982), 35–6. 110 Clifford, Proverbs, 99–101. 111 Clifford et al., “Woman wisdom in the book of Proverbs,” in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ, ed. Georg Braulik, Walter Gross, and Sean McEvenue (Freiburg: Herder, 1993), 61–72. As Clifford analyzes, Proverbs appears to have

60

Chapter 1

Clifford, several scholars, such as Jonas C. Greenfield, Henri Cazelles, and Alan Lenzi also discussed the provenance of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:30 through its linguistic nexus with the Akkadian ummānu.112 This examination demonstrates that the images and roles of personified Wisdom appear close to the roles and images of a sage with authority and wisdom or a mature heavenly figure which is closer to a symbolic mediator, and which connects the human audiences and God. However, in contrast to Clifford and Lenzi, who emphasize its images of a sage or a teacher, Fox interprets ‫ ָאמֹון‬as a “nursling” or “child (or son),” in the sense of a hypostasis of Yahweh, and later refines the view by translating it as “growing up” – grammatically, in an “infinitive absolute functioning as an adverbial complement.”113 In comparison to the son-like image of personified Wisdom in a masculine form, as several scholars analyzed, personified Wisdom appears to be similar to the daughter-like image of Egyptian Maat/Isis in a feminine form who is the daughter of Re, the sun god, and later appears to be identified with the spouse and sister of the Hellenistic sun god, Osiris.114 This shows transposed the epic type-scenes, such as the “life or death scenario,” and the encounter of the goddess and the youth. 112 Jonas C. Greenfield, “Apkallu,” in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible, 2nd rev. ed. Kevin van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 72–74; Lenzi, “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship,” JANER 8 (2008): 137–69. Clifford, Greenfield, and Lenzi argue for its explicit linguistic nexus with Akkadian ummānu, which appears in the Uruk lists of kings and sages in the ancient Near Eastern sources. See Clifford, “Proverbs 8:22–31,” 694–95. Lenzi also tries to connect the Akkadian ummānu to the Hebrew term ‫( אמן‬instead of ‫ )אמון‬as a designation of Wisdom, which attests to the Greek term τεχνῖτις “craftsman, artisan,” playing as an agent in the creation context. See also Henri Cazelles, “Ahiqar, ’Umman,’ and ’Amun, and Biblical Wisdom Texts,” in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield, ed. Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995), 45–55; Cleon L. Rogers III, “The Meaning and Significance of the Hebrew Word ‫ אמון‬in Proverbs 8, 30,” ZAW 109 (1997): 208–21; Alan Lenzi, “Proverbs 8:22–31: Three Perspectives on Its Composition,” JBL 125.4 (2006): 700–3. As Lenzi analyzes, ‫נסכתי‬, in Prov 8:23, appears to be very similar to nassiki, a common epithet for Ea that is attested to in the Akkadian texts. In light of the Akkadian and Mesopotamian tradition, Lenzi also argues that the particular usages and images of “water words” such as ‫ נסכתי‬and ‫ תהום‬in Prov 8:22–31 and Gen 1:7, and 8 appear similar to the “water and birth” images of Ea in the Mesopotamian tradition (e.g., Enumah Elish I. 79–108; IV). Cf. Stephanie Dalley, Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others (New York: Oxford University Press, 1989), 235–36. 113 Fox, “ʾAmon Again,” JBL 115.4 (1996): 699–702; idem, Proverbs 1–9, 285–87. Following the later view, Fox (285) translates it as “I was near him, growing up.” (Prov 8:30, 285), and explicates various interpretations, such as in Gen. Rab. i. (286–87). In this vein, Fox eventually appears to reject a divine origin of Woman Wisdom. 114 Jan Assmann, Ma’at: Gerechtigkteit und Unsterblichkeit im alten Ägypten (München: C. H. Beck, 1990), 161–64; Burton L. Mack, Logos and Sophia: Untersuchungen zur

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

61

that the poetic and abstract characters of personified Wisdom appear both as a person distinct from God but in proximity with God, and conveys both a masculine and feminine form in the context of creation.115 According to Fox, the compositional, exegetical, and intertextual features in the book of Proverbs strongly support a literary and exegetical development (i.e., from an inchoate stage to full-fledged stage) in the personification of wisdom and the features of the personified Wisdom figure in relation to the concept of Torah.116 In a manner similar to Fox, Sinnott suggests that the concept of personified Wisdom was developed in a gradual process through various ideological and theological responses to a critical event and dramatic change, such as the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple, the Babylonian Exile, and even the invasion of Alexander the Great in the early Hellenistic period.117 Schipper also tries to see the personified Wisdom figure as a literary and exegetical feature of a certain prophetic group during the exilic or post-exilic period, whose theological intention was to establish the authority of the Deuteronomic written Torah.118 On this controversial issue regarding the provenance and development of the personified Wisdom figure, I am primarily in agreement with the Mesopotamian origin of personified Wisdom, which Clifford, Greenfield, and Lenzi proved to be philologically and intertextually based on the Mesopotamian mythology and its traditions. On the other hand, partially keeping with Fox’s explanation of its literary development, the explicit Mesopotamian influences on it

115 116 117

118

Weisheitstheologie im Hellenistischen Judentum (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 66–72. Isis, the spouse and sister of the sun god Osiris, appears as the goddess of earth and nature and the mother of the cosmos, which implies the principle of nature in a feminine form. See Plutarch, De Iside et Osiride, 43, 53, 59. Interestingly, the image of Wisdom also appears as a loved spouse of God in Philonic thought (e.g., Leg. I. xi, 49). Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 26–27. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 331–32. Fox notes, “The literary development of the figure, such as the trope of personification is frequent and significant in the Hebrew Bible (Ps 85:11, Isa 59:14).” Sinnott, The Personification of Wisdom, 3–7, 171–72. Her argument is based on the mythological, and even Greek depictions of personified Wisdom as a feminine form in Prov 1, 7, 8, and 9. Regarding the features of personified Wisdom, Sinnott also refers to a significant theological and socio-political nexus between Sirach and The Wisdom of Solomon. Bernd U. Schipper, “When Wisdom Is Not Enough,” 75–76. Schipper concludes, “the shift is related to a theological discourse on the status of Torah in post-exilic times and to the question whether the Deuteronomistic concept of Torah as a kind of sapiential instruction can lead to a life according to the will of God” (76). He also observes that there is “a reception of Deuteronomy in Proverbs 1–9,” which alludes to “a didactic concept where wisdom can serve as a hermeneutic of Torah, transmitting the divine word from one generation to the other” (75). This implies that in the process of the final composition and editing of the book of Proverbs, the concept of wisdom was reduced, whereas the level of the Deuteronomic and written Torah was increased.

62

Chapter 1

appears to fit in the inchoate stage of its literary development. However, the Hellenistic influences on it also appear in its full-fledged stage, which combines Hellenistic ideas and the idiosyncratic idea(s) of the author(s) of Prov 8:22–31. In this sense, it is reasonable to assume that the images and meanings of personified Wisdom gradually changed and transformed as a result of the constant and dynamic interactions in and between the thought and works of the later authors throughout the Persian and Hellenistic periods.119 As seen above, the angelic and God-like images in the personified Wisdom figures dynamically appear to be intertwined with various traditions (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Greek, etc.). It shows that the images of various hypostatic notions, such as Logos and Wisdom linked to the concept of Torah, were dynamically developed by their hermeneutical and phenomenological associations throughout the history of Jewish thought. Later in the phenomenological analysis, I will examine and reevaluate, in detail, various images and connotations of personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22–31, which were dynamically formulated by its transformative process in connection with various hypostatic notions related to the Torah. Personified Wisdom in Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon, and Qumran Texts In order to trace the development of the concepts of Torah and various derivative forms of the images of personified Wisdom in relation to Torah I will delve into the related usages of personified Wisdom in other Jewish wisdom literature, such as deuterocanonical books, Wisdom of Ben Sira (= Sirach), Wisdom of Solomon, and the Qumran wisdom texts. As Richard M. Frank argues, the intertextual evidence of personified Wisdom in relation to Torah in the Hebrew Bible (especially the book of Proverbs) provides not only a critical understanding of her pre-existence and relationship with God in creation but also a way

2.2

119 Stéphanie Anthonioz, “De la personnification de la sagesse en Pr 1–9 et 31: contexte, définition et fonction,” in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, ed. Cécile Dogniez (Leuven: Peeters, 2021), 79–106. As Stéphanie Anthonioz notes, the images of personified Wisdom as a fluid figure in ambiguous and polysemic forms reflect the constant literary interactions, as well as dialogical and cross-fertilized influences between various religious and cultural traditions in Antiquity (Mesopotamian, Egyptian, Levantine and Greek, etc.). This thereby substantiates the dynamic formulation of various figures and images angelomorphized and hypostatized by the theological implications within a philosophical framework, i.e., divine immanence and transcendence. See also Stéphanie Anthonioz, Introduction générale, in Représentations, 7–21; Cécile Dogniez, “La personification de la sagesse dans la LXX des Proverbs” in Représentations, 79–106.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

63

of approaching her relationships with the personified Wisdom figures in the deutero-canonical texts, such as Sir 24 and Wis 7.120 Sirach dates approximately to the second century BCE in the late Hellenistic period.121 The personified Wisdom figure in Sirach reflects a particular socio-historical situation in the early second-century Jerusalem under Hellenistic influences.122 In Sir 24, there appears a close relationship between the Temple (v. 10), Jerusalem (Zion) (v. 11), Israel (v. 8), personified Wisdom (v. 1), and the Torah (v. 23), as is reflected in Table 1.123 In Sir 24:1, ‫ חכמה‬is personified in a feminine form, which is translated as Ἡ σοφία in the LXX.124 The personified Wisdom figure introduces and sings her own praises to her own people “in the assembly of the Most High (‫”)בתוך עמו‬ (v. 2). In Sir 24:8–11, Ben Sira seems to evoke the presence of personified Wisdom in the beginning of creation in God’s beloved city of Jerusalem, by

120 Frank, The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach (Sinai Ar. 155. IXth–Xth Cent.) (Louvain: CorpusSCO, 1974), 33–34. 121 Benjamin G. Wright III, “Ben Sira, Book of,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 437. In Sirach, the differences between the Hebrew original and its Greek translation illustrate a developmental process of Jewish sapiential tradition in broader Hellenistic contexts. The purpose of Sirach appears to be identical with the theme of the book of Proverbs: discipline through the teaching of Wisdom. 122 Ibid. For instance, Ben Sira seems to use the tradition of personified Woman Wisdom for the emphasis of the authority of the Torah. The image of personified Wisdom as a sage or teacher appears to be related to the woman’s roles in a literary and socio-historical context. This text tries to change the authoritative image of Woman Wisdom in Proverbs into the practical values in her life (Sir 25:8; 26:1–16; 28:15; 36:24–27; 40:23) in a manner reminiscent of the woman of strength in Prov 31. However, in the Jewish life of Jerusalem during the shifting period of authority from the Ptolemaic to Seleucid period around 200 BCE, the idealized female Wisdom figure did not lead to the social equality of women but appears as a manifestation of a conservative Jewish perspective about women, which overtly resisted the pressures of Hellenization. 123 Patrick W. Skehan, “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24,” CBQ 41.3 (1979): 374. This text is a sort of modern reconstruction since Sir 24 is not extant in Hebrew. Here is the translation provided by Skehan: “(1) Wisdom shall praise herself and shall glory in the midst of her people (2) In the congregation of the most High shall she open her mouth, and triumph before his power … (8) then, the Creator of all gave me his command, and my Creator chose the spot for my tent. He said, ‘In Jacob make your dwelling, in Israel your inheritance.’ (9) Before all ages, from the beginning, he created me, and through all ages I shall not cease to be. (10) In the holy tent I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion. (11) In the city he loves as he loves me, he gave me rest; in Jerusalem, my domain.” 124 Frank, The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, 33. Wisdom is ḥokhmah (‫ )חכמה‬in Hebrew and Sophia (Σοφíα) in Greek.

64 Table 1

Chapter 1 The relationship between Wisdom, and Torah in relation to Zion

‫א החכמה תהלל נפשה ובקרב עם אלהים תתפאר‬ ‫ב בעדת אל תפתח פיה ובתוך עמו תתהדר‬ ‫ח אז פקד עלי יוצר כל ואל עשני אמר ל‬ ‫ביעקב תשכון ובישראל תשתר‬ ‫ט מראש קדמי תבל נבראתי ולעלמי עד לא יסוף זכרי‬ ‫י במשכן קדשו לפניו עבדתי ושם בצין אתו קמתי‬ ‫יא בקריה אהובה נחתי וירושלים עיר ממשלתי‬ ‫כג תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב‬ ‫לג עוד כנבואת יי אטיף מלתי ולקחי אקים לדור אחרו‬

Sir 24:1–2 8–11

23 33

connecting it to personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31.125 Wisdom is obviously depicted as dwelling at the Temple of Jerusalem in Israel in Sir 24:8–11. Ben Sira’s expressions in Sir 24:23, 33 remind us of the profound relationship between personified Wisdom and Torah and their roles in Zion. Specifically, in Sir 24:33, Ben Sira implies that the Torah appears to be equated with Wisdom as an expositor of the Torah, who “again will pour out teaching like prophecy” (‫)עוד כנבואת יי אטיף מלתי‬.126 This corroborates a prophetic and salvific role and image of personified Wisdom for Zion and the people of Israel.127 Based on these relationships, Friedrich V. Reiterer explains the nexus between Wisdom and Torah in Sirach: as gifts of God for Israel, the Torah becomes “the law of life (Sir 17:11), and the fulfillment of the law (Sir 34:8)” through Wisdom.128 Andrew T. Glicksman also explains that the image of 125 Andrew T. Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011), 122–23. Glicksman (164) also observes that the author seems to place Wisdom in the heavenly court and the Temple in Jerusalem. This also alludes to a profound relationship between Torah and Zion. 126 I translated this verse following NABRE. See also Harrington, Wisdom Texts from Qumran (London: Routledge, 1996), 8. 127 Sinnott, 137. This can also be found elsewhere. Mic 4:2 is a representative verse: “For from Zion will come the Torah and from the Jerusalem the Word of YHWH.” 128 Friedrich V. Reiterer, “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira,” in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 1, ed. Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia (Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008), 224–28. Reiterer offers a summary of the attributes and activities of God, such as wisdom, creation, and law for human beings, by connecting them to the theological, soteriological, and practical functions of the Torah.

65

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah Table 2

The intertextual allusions between Sirach, Genesis, and Proverbs

‫מראש קדמי תבל נבראתי ולעלמי עד לא יסוף זכרי‬ ‫ וְ ֵאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‬,‫ ֵאת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִ ם‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ָּב ָרא ֱא‬,‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫א ְּב ֵר‬ ‫ל־פנֵי‬ ְ ּ ‫ ְמ ַר ֶח ֶפת ַע‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫רּוח ֱא‬ ַ ְ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ְתהֹום; ו‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬,‫ וְ ח ֶֹׁשְך‬,‫ ָהיְ ָתה תֹהּו וָ בֹהּו‬,‫ב וְ ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ‫ַה ָּמיִם‬ .‫ ֶק ֶדם ִמ ְפ ָע ָליו ֵמ ָאז‬:‫אׁשית ַּד ְרּכֹו‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬,‫כב יְ הוָ ה ָקנָ נִ י‬ ֹ ‫כג ֵמ‬ .‫־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ נִ ּ ַס ְכ ִּתי ֵמרֹאשׁ ִמ ַ ּק ְד ֵמי‬,‫עולָ ם‬ ֹ ‫חֹול ְל ִּתי; ְּב ֵאין ַמ ְעי‬ ָ ‫ין־ּתהֹמֹות‬ ְ ‫כד ְּב ֵא‬ .‫י־מיִ ם‬ ָ ‫ נִ ְכ ַּב ֵּד‬,‫ָנות‬ ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ְתהֹום‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬,‫ ָׁשם ָאנִ י; ְּב ֻחקֹו חּוג‬,‫כז ַּב ֲה ִכינֹו ָׁש ַמיִם‬ ‫ יֹום יֹום‬,‫ׁשּועים‬ ִ ‫ וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ַׁש ֲע‬:‫ ָאמֹון‬,‫ל וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ֶא ְצלֹו‬

Sir 24:9 Gen 1:1–2

Prov 8:22 23 24 27 30

Translations of Table 2. Gen 1:1–2 and Prov 8: 22–24, 27, 30

Gen 1:1–2

Prov 8:22–24 27, 30

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 2 The earth was without form and void, and darkness was over the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God was hovering over the face of the waters. 22 The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. 23 Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth. 24 When there were no depths I was brought forth, when there were no springs abounding with water. 27 When he established the heavens, I was there; when he drew a circle on the face of the deep, 30 Then I was by him, as amun brought up with him: and I was daily his delight, rejoicing always before him

personified Wisdom in Sir 24 has a liturgical role as a mediator between God and human beings.129 In particular, we can see the intertextual and compositional similarities between Sir 24:9 and Prov 8:23, as well as Gen 1:1–2.130 129 Glicksman, 12–23. Interestingly, Ben Sira, in a sense, seems to describe himself as personified Wisdom who resides in Jerusalem. Glicksman mentions that the liturgical purpose is focused on the relationship between the heavenly God and the people of Israel. 130 Ibid.; Reinhard Adler, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online -bibeln/ueber-die-online-bibeln/ (accessed by Oct. 2020). I translated these texts by

66

Chapter 1

Sir 24:9, “He created me from the beginning before the world, and I shall not fail forever,” explicitly alludes to the first moment of Gen 1:1, as well as to the personification of Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31. These three texts particularly show terminological similarities, such as ‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ֵר‬and ‫ל־ּפנֵ י ְתהֹום‬ ְ ‫ ַע‬, and a substitutability, such as ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬and ‫ ָּב ָרא‬in place of ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬and ‫ ָקנָ נִ י‬.131 Gen 1:1 provides a critical foundation for a close association of personified Wisdom with God in the creation account of Prov 8:22–31.132 Glicksman also explains that the motive for personifying Wisdom, which is profoundly related to a liturgical purpose in Sir 24:10, is that it serves the role of Wisdom connecting God and the people of Israel.133 It is notable that Ben Sira, in Sir 24:23, connects and identifies the Torah in the center of the Temple of Jerusalem with the critical role of personified Wisdom in Prov 8.134 As for Ben Sira’s particular preference for Deuteronomy when it comes to the identification of the Wisdom and Torah, we can see a profound nexus between personified Wisdom in Prov 8 and the tradition, which increasingly came to associate personified Wisdom with the Law [Torah] in Sir 24. In this sense, Brooke emphasizes “the richness of the traditions which increasingly come to associate wisdom personified with the Law [Torah] as in the approximately contemporary Ben Sira 24.”135 referring various translations such as NIV. Glicksman supports his assertions by quoting the earlier biblical texts as well as their reinterpretations. 131 Ibid. According to the Documentary Hypothesis, it could be hypothetically said that ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ֱא‬and ‫ ָּב ָרא‬in Genesis, belongs to an Elohist source (E) written around 850 BCE, and ‫ יְ הוָ ה‬and ‫ ָקנָ נִ י‬in Proverbs, belongs to a Yahwist sources (J) written around 950 BCE. Cf. Sir 24:9. However, this does not seem to be a proper chronological calculation. Based on biblical criticism, it is not easy to delineate the chronological order between Genesis and Proverbs on the basis of literary, exegetic, and compositional dimensions. Nonetheless, this strongly implies that Prov 8:22–31 was written with Gen 1 in the background, because the author’s intention of Prov 8:22–31 seems to emphasize the superiority of Wisdom by employing ‫ ָקנָ נִ י‬instead of ‫ ָּב ָרא‬in Genesis. See Lenzi, “Proverbs 8:22–31,” 694–95, 700–3. The similarities between the “water words” such as ‫ תהום‬in Gen 1, 7, and 8, and Prov 8:22–31 which reflects a Mesopotamian tradition enhances intertextual and compositional similarities with Sir 24:9. 132 The remainder of Prov 8 also supports the fact of Wisdom’s presence with God during the creation. 133 Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10, 122–23. Sir 24:10 reads, ‫במשכן קדשו לפניו עבדתי ושם‬ ‫בצין אתו קמתי‬, “In the holy tent I ministered before him, and so I was established in Zion.” 134 Sinnott, 110. Regarding this, Sinnott explains that personified Wisdom is utilized in portrayals of the Torah, and that the identification of the Wisdom with the Torah is developed by the personification of Wisdom within “a heritage for the community of Jacob.” 135 George J. Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom Texts from Qumran,” in The Wisdom texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought (Leuven: Leuven University Press, Uitgeverij Peeters, 2002), 219.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah Table 3

Evidence of quotation of Sir 24:23 from Dt 33:4 ‫כג כל אלה בספר ברית יי כתובים תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב‬

23 ταῦτα πάντα βίβλος διαθήκης Θεοῦ Ὑψίστου, νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς κληρονομίαν συναγωγαῖς ᾿ Ιακώβ.

‫ ְק ִה ַּלת יַ ֲעקֹב‬,‫מֹור ָׁשה‬ ָ :‫ מ ֶֹׁשה‬,‫ה־לנּו‬ ָ ָ‫ּתֹורה ִצּו‬ ָ ‫ד‬

Table 4

67

Sir 24:23 LXX Dt 33:4

Preexistent evidence of the relationship between Wisdom and Torah

‫ ַל ֲעׂשֹות ֵּכן ְּב ֶק ֶרב‬:‫ֹלהי‬ ָ ‫ יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬,‫ ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר ִצּוַ נִ י‬,‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ִטים‬ ִ ‫ ֻח ִּקים‬,‫ה ְר ֵאה ִל ַּמ ְד ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר ַא ֶּתם ָּב ִאים ָׁש ָּמה ְל ִר ְׁש ָּתּה‬,‫ָה ָא ֶרץ‬ ֶ ‫ וַ ֲע ִׂש‬,‫ּוׁש ַמ ְר ֶּתם‬ ְ ‫ו‬ ‫ ֵאת ָּכל־‬,‫ ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ְׁש ְמעּון‬:‫ ְל ֵעינֵ י ָה ַע ִּמים‬,‫ּובינַ ְת ֶכם‬ ִ ‫יתם ִּכי ִהוא חָ ְכ ַמ ְתכֶ ם‬ ‫ ַהּגֹוי ַהּגָ דֹול ַהּזֶ ה‬,‫ם־ח ָכם וְ נָ בֹון‬ ָ ‫ וְ ָא ְמרּו ַרק ַע‬,‫ַה ֻח ִּקים ָה ֵא ֶּלה‬ .‫ל־ק ְר ֵאנּו ֵא ָליו‬ ָ ‫ ְּב ָכ‬,‫ֹלהינּו‬ ֵ ‫ ַּכיהוָ ה ֱא‬,‫ֹלהים ְקר ִֹבים ֵא ָליו‬ ִ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר־לֹו ֱא‬,‫ז ִּכי ִמי־גֹוי ּגָ דֹול‬ ִ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ִטים ַצ ִּד‬ ִ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר־לֹו ֻח ִּקים‬,‫ּומי ּגֹוי ּגָ דֹול‬ ִ ‫ח‬ ‫ ְּככֹל הַ ּתוֹ ָרה ַהּזֹאת‬,‫יקם‬

Dt 4:5–8a

a (5) “… I have taught you statutes and judgments … (6) Observe them and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the people (8) And what great nation is there, that has statutes and judgments ….” I translated these verses by referring to the NIV and KJV translations.

Indeed, we can see that the nexus between Wisdom and Torah, in addition to a clear inspiration from Prov 8:23 and Gen 1:1–2, is strengthened by the fact that Ben Sira interpolates Dt 33:4 into the verse in Sir 24:23. Sinnott notes that Ben Sira’s theological perspective for the identification of Wisdom with the Torah appears to have originally derived from the Hebrew Bible texts, such as Dt 4:5–8 which allude to “a similar notion with the portrayal of Wisdom as Torah in Sir 24:23.”136 This intertextual connection made through quoting and reinterpreting earlier or older biblical texts, such as Dt 33:4, guarantees more of a profound relationship between Torah and personified Wisdom.137 This demonstrates that the sources Ben Sira had in his mind also include Deuteronomy, Genesis, and 136 Sinnott, 137–38. 1 Bar 3:9–4:4 shows the explicit identification between Wisdom and Torah in a manner similar to Sir 24, based on the biblical texts, such as Dt 4:5–8 and Ps 1; 19:8; 119:97–98, showing a close intertextual relationship with Wisdom of Ben Sira. In Sir 24:23, there is a special notion of the relevance of the book of the covenant of God in the history of Israel. This is comparable to texts, such as Ex 24:7, 2 Kgs 23:2, 21:2, 2 Chr 34:31, and 1 Macc 1:57. 137 Ibid., 110.

68

Chapter 1

Proverbs. It is possible that Ben Sira aimed at emphasizing the superiority of the Torah and Israelite Wisdom as a response to Hellenistic wisdom, i.e., as a theological response to a historical and ideological circumstance dominant in the Hellenistic period. This also shows not only explicit evidence of a profound nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah but also the manner in which their identification emerged from his practices of rewriting earlier and older scriptural passages, which reflect their relationships. In a related manner, we can also see another piece of evidence of personified Wisdom in relation to Torah in the Wisdom of Solomon, which was composed in Greek in approximately the first century BCE.138 Glicksman notes, “the function and role of Wisdom is connected with the purpose of the book as a whole, [as] in Solomon’s prayer for wisdom (Wis 9:1–7).” In a manner similar to Sirach, the author of the Wisdom of Solomon primarily appears to intend to teach Jewish audiences to seek the way of salvation and safety from the Hellenistic world through the teaching of personified Wisdom in Wis 9:18, and Wis 10.4, and so forth.139 In the Wisdom of Solomon, the combination between personified Wisdom of Proverbs and philosophical ideas, such as the Stoic Logos and “spirit” (πνεῦμα), reveals a considerable influence from Platonic and Hellenistic thought.140 It Table 5

Evidence of personified Wisdom in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon

Wis 9:18

καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ ἐσώθησαν “were saved by wisdom” δι᾿ ὃν κατακλυζομένην γῆν πάλιν διέσωσε σοφία “wisdom saved again for being drawn with flood” Ἡ σοφία αἰνέσει ψυχὴν αὐτῆς “Wisdom sings her own praises”

Wis 10:4 Sir 24:1

138 As Winston (20) notes, “No consensus has thus far emerged regarding the date of Wisd, and various scholars have placed it anywhere between 220 BCE and 50 CE.” Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 20–25. See also Randall D. Chesnutt, “Solomon, Wisdom of,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 1243. The audience of this book seems to be Jews who lived in Alexandria, a Hellenistic city at that time. 139 Glicksman, 160–2. In Wis 10:1–21, the author seems to emphasize that God and Wisdom have an identical reality insofar as Wisdom, like God, is involved in salvation. Glicksman’s conclusion is that the author attempts to portray Wisdom as a guide and savior, while recalling the salvific works of God, such as the Exodus. 140 Ibid.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

69

is also worth paying attention to some different cultural influences on the Wisdom of Solomon, such as those of the Egyptian and Mesopotamian cultures and ideologies.141 Unlike personified Wisdom in Sirach, she appears as a divine being with a God-like image who takes part in creation in Wis 7:25–8:1.142 In this regard, David Winston notes that this is “the earliest attestation of its explicit application to the Logos or Sophia (i.e., Wisdom) as an emanation from God.”143 The philosophical nexus between the ideas of Logos and Torah, found in the depiction of personified Wisdom, appear to have been influenced by Platonic and Hellenistic thought.144 Indeed, a conceptual and intertextual nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah appears in the Wisdom of Solomon. The terms λόγος and νομός are translated as the Word of God or the Law of Moses in the following phrases, such as “your word” λόγῳ σου (Wis 9:1), “law” νόμον (Wis 6:4), which can be equivalent with ‫חוק‬, and “instruction” παιδείας (Wis 6:17) with ‫מוסר‬. The terms νομός and λόγος in Wisdom of Solomon, which appear to be semantically identified with Torah, have an implicit correlation with Wisdom in a manner similar to the identification between personified Wisdom and Torah in Sirach. However, in contrast to Sirach, the Wisdom of Solomon does not appear to attempt to directly connect personified Wisdom to Torah, but instead emphasizes the images and roles of personified Wisdom in relation to a philosophical Logos or God Himself. Furthermore, the images of personified Table 6

Intertextual nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah in Wisdom of Solomon

Wis 9:1

ΘΕΕ πατέρων καὶ Κύριε τοῦ ἐλέους ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σου O God of fathers, Lord of mercy, who has created all things in your word οὐδὲ ἐφυλάξατε νόμον, οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπορεύθητε. you did not keep the law, and did not follow the counsel of God ἀρχὴ γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀληθεστάτη παιδείας ἐπιθυμία, φροντὶς δὲ παιδείας ἀγάπη, For the beginning of wisdom is to love true discipline; the results of discipline is love

Wis 6:4 Wis 6 :17(18)

141 Ibid., 165–70. For instance, there are mythological texts that describe the Egyptian goddess Isis. 142 Winston, The Wisdom of Solomon, 184–90. 143 Ibid., 185. 144 Martin J. Scott C., Sophia and the Johannine Jesus (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1992), 89.

70

Chapter 1

Wisdom are depicted as a “guide” in διέσωσε ἔσωσεν σοφία in Wis 10:4 and as a “savior” in σοφίᾳ ἐσώθησαν in Wis 9:18.145 The self-narrative of personified Wisdom leads to the inference that God speaks through the prophets for the salvific revelations. This shows that the image of personified Wisdom symbolically appears as a salvific and God-like figure in an intimate relationship with God. More interestingly, personified Wisdom also appears in the sapiential texts from Qumran, which were most likely composed from around the early second century BCE to the late first century CE. The character of wisdom in the Qumran texts alludes to an eschatological aspect of personified Wisdom, which is also asserted in Sirach.146 In the Qumran Wisdom texts, there are a few passages that relate to personified Wisdom, such as 4Q184, 4Q185, 4Q525, “Sir 51:13–30” (11QPsa = 11Q5 21:11–17, 22:1), “David’s Composition” (11QPsa 27:2–11), and Ps 154 (= SyrPs II in 11QPsa 18:3, 10–14).147 In “Wiles of the Wicked Woman” (4Q184), the author uses literary personification in order to “transform the image of Strange Women into a mythological figure of evil.”148 A strange woman (‫אישה‬ ‫ )זרה‬in Prov 1–9 appears very similar to Woman Folly in 4Q184, who leads men to sin and death.149 Likewise, the Wicked Woman depicted in 4Q184 Frg.1:6–7 indicates a personification of foolishness.150 The vivid depictions of Woman 145 Sinnott, 161–2. In addition, the image of personified Wisdom as a “guide” appears in οδηγος in Wis 7:15, and ὡδήγησεν in Wis 10:10. 146 Crenshaw, 197. 147 As D. Andrew Teeter notes, a clear association between personified Wisdom and Torah appears in Ps 154 (= SyrPs II) in 11QPsa 18, lines 10–12: “From the gates of the righteous is Wisdom’s voice heard, from the assembly of the pious (10), her song. When they eat to satiety she is cited, when they drink, bound together (11) as one: their conversation is on the Law of the Most High, their words but declaring His might” (12). See the English translation in Teeter, “Wisdom and Torah,” 261. Cf. Dieter Lührmann, “Ein Weisheitspsalm aus Qumran (11 QPsa XVIII),” ZAW 80 (1968): 87–98. The case of Wisdom in 4Q525 (= 4QBeat) is not exactly personified. However, it appears to be a speaker calling out in a manner similar to personified Wisdom in Prov 8. The main message (instructions and reprimands) of Wisdom in 4Q525 is that to achieve wisdom, happiness, and successful life, the fulfillment of Torah is required. 148 Matthew J. Goff, “Wisdom Literature at Qumran,” in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 1343. 149 Harrington, in Wisdom Texts from Qumran, 32–5, notes, “The poem about Lady Folly in 4Q184 is manifestly based upon the “Folly” passages scattered throughout Proverbs 1–9.” (34) In addition, the “harshly negative portrait” in the poem about Woman Folly intends “to warn the readers” against her enticements (35). 150 Donald W. Parry, and Emanuel Tov, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004), 284–85. 4Q184 Frg.1. 6–7, ‫ערשיה יצועיה יצועי שחת[מעמקי בור מלונותיה משכבי חושד‬ ‫“ ובאישני ליל[ה ממ]שלותיה‬Her beds are couches of corruption, […] Her lodgings are beds of darkness and in the depths of the nigh[t] are her [do]minions” (Harrington, 32). In

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

71

Folly appear to allude to the street prostitute described in Prov 5:3–14, 7:5–23, and 9:14–17.151 In Sir 51:13–19, 30 (11QPsa 21:11–17, 22:1), which is a version of Sirach from Qumran, personified Woman Wisdom is described in a narrative of an anonymous young man’s search for personified Wisdom as a woman teacher.152 This is similar to Prov 8–9, Sir 15:1–8 and Wis 8:2–21, as well as to the Canticles, insofar as this description alludes to a sexual component.153 This diametric contrast between Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly in the Qumran texts also appears to reflect “a dualistic setting” illustrated in Proverbs and in the Qumran sectarian writings such as the Community Rule in 1QS 3:13–4:26 and 4Q473.154 Additionally, 4Q185 describes the search for wisdom, encouraging one to observe “the words of the Lord (‫( ”(דברי יהוה‬4Q185 Col. II. 3).155 This Qumran text employs interchangeable vocabularies, which are equivalent to the Torah, such as “the words of God” (‫)דבר יהוה‬, “law” (‫)חוק‬, “teaching” (‫)הורה‬, and “instruction” (‫)מוסר‬. This shows that the substitution of these words as a compositional and exegetic strategy was significant for the author in describing his theological and religious intention and its expressions. In addition, Brooke agrees that Torah is represented as personified Wisdom in the Qumran texts as it was in Sirach.156 In addition, “David’s Compositions” (11QPsa 27:2–11) is closely related to Sir 24, which combines the significant concepts of biblical and prophetic Jewish traditions: Wisdom, Torah, and Temple in Zion.157 This text shows a strong Torah-centered Davidic tradition and has a literary structure similar to 1 Kgs 5:9–14. Importantly, we can also find the evidence of personified Wisdom in 11QPsa 18 (= Ps 154):3, 10–13 from Qumran, where it appears in relation to the concept of Torah.

reference to Woman Folly in 4Q184 we read of the “Wiles of the Wicked Women” (Allegro, 1968:82–83) and the “Seductress” (Vermès, 2004:273). 4Q184 clearly shows evidence of reusing and rewriting the language of Prov 1–9. See also Washington, “The Strange Woman of Proverbs 1–9,” 217–42. 151 Harrington, 34. 152 Ibid., 35. 4Q184 seems to reuse the language of Prov 1–9, in order to warn the readers against Woman Folly. Prov 1–9 focuses more on Woman Wisdom who gives the instructions to his young male students against the attractions of Woman Folly. 153 Ibid., 29. 154 Ibid. 155 Parry, The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader, 274–77. 156 Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation,” 219. 157 D. Andrew Teeter, “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture: Jubilees and 11QPsa in Comparative Perspective” in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period, ed. Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter (Leiden: Brill, 2013), 263.

72 Table 7

Chapter 1 Evidence of personified Wisdom in relation to Torah in Qumran texts

‫ג לכול פותאים כי להודיע כבוד יהוה נתנה חוכמה ולספל‬ ‫י צדיקים מפתחי צדיקים נשמע קולה ומקהל חסידים‬ ‫יא זמרתה על אוכלםה בשבע נאמרה ועל שתותמה בחבר‬ ‫יב יחדיו שיחתם בתורת עליון אמריהמה להודיע עוזו‬ ‫יג כמה רחקה מרשעים אמרה מכול זדים לדעתה הנה‬

11QPsa 18 (= Ps 154): 3 10–13i

i James H. Charlesworth, and Frank M. Cross et al. (trans. and eds.), The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994–2011), 4A: 170–73; Ps 154:3, 10–13 (= 11QPsa 18): “(3) To all the simple ones. For to make known the glory of Yahweh is Wisdom given, and to correct. (10) the righteous ones. From the openings of the righteous ones is heard her voice, and from the assembly of the pious ones. (11) Her praise-song. When they eat with satiety she is cited, and when they drink in fellowship. (12) Together, their mediation is on the Torah of the Most High, their words are to make known his might. (13) How far from the wicked ones (is) her word, from all the haughty ones to know her. Behold.”

This text shows not only the apparent nexus between Wisdom and Torah but also how the critical aspects (voices, etc.) of personified Wisdom encompass an explicit connection with and equation to the Torah. In all, this examination regarding the features of personified Wisdom in Wisdom literature strengthens the intertextual and theological nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah. Above all, theses demonstrate that the images of personified Wisdom in relation to Torah appear not only as a heavenly figure with various symbolic images (son-like or father-like or sage), who is a mediator that connects human beings and God, but also as a hypostatic notion which is in an intimate relationship with God or even identical to God. They also show the authors’ compositional and exegetical practices for the personification and hypostatization of wisdom, which involved various intersections between scriptural sources and early Jewish wisdom traditions in accordance with their socio-historical backgrounds and the diversity of religious systems to which they belong to. Specifically, it is notable that the close association between Wisdom and Torah appears to be intertwined with the dynamic expressions of different kinds (i.e., gendered symbols) of conceptualizations of wisdom as personified Wisdom.158 This authenticates that the personification and hypostatization 158 Eibert J. C. Tigchelaar, Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls: She’s No Lady, in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, ed. Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez (Leuven: Peeters, 2021), 217–18. As Tigchelaar notes, there is a fundamental

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

73

of wisdom reflect the authors’ theological intentions and philosophical backgrounds, which they convey through a literary and hermeneutic strategies that describe Torah in poetic, symbolic, and prophetic ways. This analysis ultimately provides evidence of a Wisdom-centered hypostatic understanding of Torah (i.e., personified Wisdom) as well as, more broadly, a Wisdom-centered tradition, which was manifest during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. As will be seen, this Wisdom-centered tradition will continue to reverberate in the history of later Jewish thought. 2.3 Philo’s Logos On the basis of the previous examinations of the relationship between personified Wisdom and Torah, I now examine Philo’s Logos as one of the hypostatic notions to related to Torah. I will methodically investigate the intertextual and theological relationships between personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos, which involves a synthesis between Jewish Wisdom and Greek Logos. It is notable that in the first three centuries CE, Jewish Palestinian culture was gradually integrated into, and deeply influenced by Hellenistic ways of life, thought, and expression.159 Philo was clearly writing for an audience of Jews devoted to interpretations of the Hebrew Bible, which were based on the key middle-Platonic theological notions. As Wolfson notes, Philo’s biblical exegesis in Greek reflects a creative combination of Jewish wisdom traditions and Greek philosophy.160 The ultimate concern of Philo was to fully authorize the concept and uniqueness of Torah through authoritative interpretations which reflect the Hellenistic context.161 Philo thereby investigates the detailed descriptions of Moses’ cosmology of divine creation with regard difference between the personification of wisdom in Proverbs and other Wisdom sources speaking about wisdom. He also notes that the image of Lady Wisdom in the Wisdom material does not necessarily reflect an erotic love between man and woman, but her specific functions and images vary “from one text to another, ranging from poetic eulogy of the teacher, through strengthening of the identity of the party of the pious, to glorification of God” (218). 159 Gregory E. Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases? The Image of God in Philo’s De Opificio Mundi,” in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated literature, ed. Gary A. Anderson, Ruth Clements, and David Satran (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013), 42. 160 Wolfson, Philo, 1:255. 161 Ibid. Middle-Platonic readings of Plato’s Timaeus emphasize an intermediary role of the “image” as a second principle, which is called “the Idea,” “the heavenly Mind,” “the demiurge God,” and “the Logos.” This shows the critical influence of middle-Platonism on Philo’s Logos as divine mediator. I will discuss this later in this study.

74

Chapter 1

to the existence of the world, divine attributes, creation, and providence in the Hebrew Bible.162 The idea of Logos as a unique way of thinking about God, was a virtual commonplace in Alexandrian Jewish thought.163 Philo’s Logos shows a creative synthesis of the concepts of Torah and philosophical works on the Greek Logos. He adopts a theological notion of the Logos as a divine mediator under the influence of middle-Platonism while investigating the various exegetical and philosophical traditions of other contemporary Jewish texts. Specifically, in his explanations of Logos in the treatise De Opificio Mundi (= Opif.): On the Creation of the Cosmos according to Moses, Philo crafts his own exegetical methodology, which employs both Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish biblical traditions from Genesis.164 Philo, in Opif., xxv, 77, primarily elaborates on the Image of God in Gen 1:26–27 and Gen 2:7. Philo, in Opif. xxiii, 69–71, distinguishes the meaning of κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ (‫ ְּב ַצ ְל ֵמנּו‬or ‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫“ ) ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬in the Image of God” in Gen 1:26–27 from καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν (‫מּותנּו‬ ֵ ‫ ) ִּכ ְד‬in Gen 1:26, which means his likeness or resemblance, i.e., “an image of the Image of God,” which is supposed to be a human being.165 By this logic, Philo also articulates the meanings of ‫( ְּיִב ָרא‬γεγενῆσθαι, “came into existence”) in Gen 1:26–27 and ‫( ּיִ ֶיצר‬ἔπλασεν, “formed” or “fashioned”) in Gen 2:7.166 According to David T. Runia, Philo, in Opif. xlvi, 134–135 and Leg. I. xi, 31–32, assumes that the human being of Gen 1:26–27 is intelligible, 162 Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 43–44. 163 Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John,” HTR 94.3 (2001): 249. 164 Sterling, “When the Beginning Is the End: The Place of Genesis in the Commentaries of Philo,” in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception and Interpretation, ed. Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen (Leiden: Brill, 2012), 428–38. Philo’s works comprise three independent sets of commentaries on the Pentateuch, and extensive treatment of Genesis. Three sets are as follows: The Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, The Allegorical Commentary, Exposition of the Law. Cf. Philo, Opif. (= On the Creation) xlvi–xlvii, 134–36 [Ralph Marcus et al., LCL]. 165 Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 44–47; Thomas H. Tobin, The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation (WA: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983), 36–37. Cf. William F. Arndt, Walter Bauer, and Frederick W. Danker, eds., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 487. 166 Philo, Opif. xxiii, 69–71: “Moses tells us that man was created after the image of God and after His likeness (Gen. i. 26) Let no one represent the likeness as one to a bodily form; for neither is God in human form, nor is the human body God-like.” (69); “And, since images do not always correspond to their archetype and pattern, but are in many instances unlike it, the writer further brought out his meaning by adding ‘after the likeness’ to the words ‘after the image,’ thus showing that an accurate cast, bearing a clear impression, was intended” (71).

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

75

Table 8

Gen 1:26–27, 2:7 in the LXX

Gen 1:26

τὸν ἄνθρωπόν φησι γεγενῆσθαι κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ καὶ καθ’ ὁμοίωσιν.

1:27

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς

Gen 2:7

καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν.

‫מּותנֹו‬ ֵ ‫ת־ה ָא ָדם ְּב ַצ ְלמו ִּכ ְד‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫וַ ְּיִב ָרא ֱא‬

‫ֹלהים ָּב ָרא אֹתֹו‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬,‫ת־ה ָא ָדם ְּב ַצ ְלמֹו‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫וַ ְּיִב ָרא ֱא‬

,‫ נִ ְׁש ַמת ַחּיִ ים; וַ יְ ִהי ָה ָא ָדם‬,‫ וַ ּיִ ַּפח ְּב ַא ָּפיו‬,‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫ ָע ָפר ִמ‬,‫ת־ה ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫יצר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ִ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ְלנֶ ֶפׁש ַחּיָ ה‬

incorporeal, and immortal, while the human being of Gen 2:7 is composed of body and soul, and mortal.167 This implies that the human being was created to convey not only an earthly image, but also a heavenly image very similar to the Image of God and His likeness.168 Interestingly, Philo, in Opif. xxxi, 95–96, translates ‫( ְּב ֶצ ֶלם‬Βεσελεῆλ in Greek) in Gen 1:27 as “in the shadow of God.” He thereby exemplifies the heavenly image of human beings by highlighting the image of the chief craftsperson of the Tabernacle as an individual who was endowed with various gifts by God.169 This implies that Philo appears 167 David T. Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, vol. 44 (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1986), 556–58; idem, Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 321–11. In addition, Sterling, in “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 45, 48, 50–52, explains that just as God is the model for the Image which has been called a shadow, the Image is the model for other things. This shows that God made the human being to represent the Image. Thomas H. Tobin deals with a controversial issue regarding two different versions (i.e., a single and double creation) of the creation of human beings in relation to the Image of God in Genesis 1–2. The single creation perspective means a Platonizing interpretation that includes the Logos as the Image of God in Gen 1:26–27 due to anti-anthropomorphic tendencies, whereas the double creation perspective implies a Stoicizing interpretation, which focuses on the pneuma in Gen 2:7. See also Tobin, The Creation of Man, 558–60. Runia harmonizes this double creation perspective in the two Genesis stories. 168 See Philo, Leg. I. xi, 31: “There are two types of men; the one a heavenly man, the other earthly. The heavenly man, being made after the image of God, is altogether without part or lot in corruptible and terrestrial substance; but the earthly one was compacted out of the matter scattered here and there, which Moses calls ‘clay’.” See also Philo, Opif. xlvi, 134–35. Through the philosophical interpretation of Scripture, Philo explains the threefold scope of the ontological and hierarchic order: God, the Logos, and humanity. 169 Philo, in Leg. II. xxiv, 96, notes that Bezalel [in Ex 31:2–3] means “in the shadow of God,” which is identified with “his Logos” that God used like “an instrument to create the

76

Chapter 1

to understand the Image of God in Gen 1:27 as an intermediary by associating it with the second principle of a middle-Platonic concept in Plato’s Timaeus.170 In this sense, Philo, in Opif. xxv, 77 and Leg. I. xxiii, 69–73, explicitly connects the Image of God with the Logos as a mediator between God and human beings.171 In the larger system of his thought, Philo further explains how the entire sense-perceptible cosmos – a copy of a divine Image and “intelligible cosmos” – is connected to the Logos as the model (or the archetypal seal) of the human beings.172 Philo thereby explicates that the divine Logos serves as the representative of God, i.e., “the intelligible cosmos,” which is positioned between God and human beings, including the perceptible cosmos.173 The active cause of an incorporeal intellect (i.e., invisible Reason) is not only the intellect of the universe but is also superior to all the men and all rational natures, and is eventually identified with the divine Logos, i.e., Word of God (ὁ θεού λόγos).174 By this logic, Philo develops not only a thematic link between the image of invisible Reason and the “first man” but also an intimate relationship between God and the divine Logos.175

cosmos.” Philo also uses the etymology of Bezalel to establish a thematic link between and the metaphor of Plato’s cave in Republic VII. 514a–520a. 170 See Runia, Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato, 38–41. Runia (200–8) discusses not only the relationship between Plato’s cosmic soul (e.g., Timaeus 34b–36b) and the Philonic Logos (e.g., Somn. I. ii, 2; Leg. I. xxix, 91), but also the relationship between Plato’s demiurge (e.g., Timaeus 41 a–b) and the Philonic Logos (e.g., Migr. xxxii, 181, and so forth). See also Runia, 232–49. 171 See Philo, Leg. I. lvi–xlvii, 134–36; Leg. II. xxxi, 96. Philo also, in Conf. xxviii, 146 and Migr. xxxiv, 174, implies the idea that God is not an agent of punishment and evil, while identifying the mediating agents with the archangels and the Logos as the highest of them, whereas Justin understands the idea of a single intermediator of the Logos in creation. See also Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr: An Investigation into the Conceptions of Early Christian Literature and Its Hellenistic and Judaistic Influences (Amsterdam: Philo Press, 1968), 168; Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism (Leiden: Brill, 2002), 221–22. 172 Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 55. On the basis of this logic, Philo notes that the cosmos is a copy of the intelligible cosmos and of God. 173 Ibid. 174 Ibid. By this logic, Philo explains the incorporeal and corporeal substances, while basing his philosophical foundations on this presupposition, i.e., the Reason of God as an incorporeal intellect. 175 Runia, On the Creation, 111, 139–141, 337, 344–45; Charles D. Yonge, The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 5; Wolfson, Philo, 1:5–9, 48. Philo appears to hesitate about whether the Logos exists separately or is totally incorporated with the godhead.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

77

Based on this theory, Philo associates the Image of God, in Gen 1:26–27 and Gen 2:7, with the Logos of God (ὁ θεού λόγos), and further associates the human being with an image of the Image of God.176 Philo thereby claims that human beings were created according to the Image of God which is identified with the Logos. More importantly, this reasoning enables Philo to both offer a conception of the Logos as a metaphysical intermediate being and also to see it as a “second god,” who is the Logos of God.177 The Logos of God, under his semi-Jewish philosophy, signifies not only a part and separate being of God but also a second God and a being that is with God.178 This indicates that Philo’s Logos offers a significant possibility that the divine Logos can be both the first human being and a second God. For Philo, God created the world by the Logos, which serves as an agent, and revealed Himself to the prophets by means of His Word or Logos.179 This suggests that Philo equates the Logos not only with the inner essence (of principles) of the Torah (i.e., the Laws of Moses) but also with Torah as a hypostatic notion created by God before the creation of the world, as well as a blueprint functionally designed for the divine work of creation.180 By utilizing the conceptions of the Logos, Philo shows an innovative way of elucidating the relationship between Torah (Word of God) and personified Wisdom (in Prov 8:22–31) in the creation context.181 Philo’s Logos contains the conceptions and epithets of Torah, which combines the Greek Logos with the biblical concepts of Torah. Specifically, Helmer Ringgren also explains that Philo’s exegetical use of Logos reinforces the Jewish exegetical practices for the personification of Wisdom.182 This shows that the Logos is not only the Word that

176 Sterling, 44. 177 Runia, On the Creation, 111, 139–41, 337, 344–45; QG 1, 4; QG 2, 62. 178 Ibid., 23; Daniel Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004), 114. 179 Ibid. Philo’s Logos is not the same as the Stoic or Platonic Logos. It is also not identical with the several usages of “Word” in the Hebrew Bible. For Philo, the Word is associated with the “mind of God” which contains the forms or the plan of all that is created. This seems to provide an opening to use the concept for the incarnation of the Word in Christian theology. 180 Wolfson, Philo, 1:258–61. Philo’s Logos appears to be identified not only with the preexistent Law (or Torah) but also with personified Wisdom in creation. 181 Wolfson, Philo, 1:254–55. Wolfson notes, “It was quite natural for Philo to use also the term Wisdom as the equivalent of Logos” (254–55) in reference to Leg. I. xix, 65. Interestingly, the Jewish hypostatic notions are condensed and consolidated in Philo’s Logos. 182 Helmer Ringgren, Word and Wisdom Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East (Lund: Håkan Ohlssons boktryckeri 1947), 123–25.

78

Chapter 1

God created in the beginning that it also plays a mediatorial role as a divine agent for the creation of the world. In all, this examination demonstrates not only how Philo’s Logos points to a theological and philosophical synthesis between the concepts of Torah and God through Jewish exegetical practices but also how Philo’s Logos played a critical role in providing a theological route and a philosophical mediator for the centralization of Torah and the formulation of the images of Torah. It also corroborates that Philo’s work, which combines Hellenistic philosophy and biblical (and Second Temple) traditions, appears to participate in the conceptual development of Torah in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods.183 As many scholars, such as William F. Albright, have noted, Philo’s Logos primarily might have derived from the combination of Torah and personified Wisdom, which existed in Jewish wisdom traditions even before Hellenization.184 As Ringgren notes, the profound relationship between Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom corroborates that Philo’s Logos also shows a possibility of connecting the Greek Logos to Jewish hypostatic notions, such as Torah and personified Wisdom, by combining and harmonizing Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish biblical traditions.185 Indeed, Philo’s exegetical use of Logos, which is based on a synthesis of early Jewish exegetical practices and the Hellenistic influences, explicitly reflect a similarity to or close relationship with personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31.186 In this sense, Craig S. Keener confirms that Philo’s Logos appears to logically combine universal Law [or Torah] 183 Najman, Seconding Sinai, 107, 116. Najman argues that Philo elaborated and reworked the Mosaic and Deuteronomic discourses. 184 William F. Albright, “The Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the Logos,” JBL 39 (1920): 143–51. He also asserts that personified Wisdom is not essentially related to Hellenistic origin but more significantly originates in Canaanite-Aramean paganism. Nevertheless, as examined earlier, it becomes evident that Greek influences strengthened the developmental process of personified Wisdom in the Jewish wisdom traditions. 185 Ringgren, Word and Wisdom, 123. 186 Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 43–44. The closeness of Philo’s Logos to Torah and Jewish homiletic and midrashic practices appears in his descriptions of the cosmology in the opening verses of Genesis. As we can also see in Gen. Rab. i. 1; viii, 5–8, the Rabbis elaborate the idea that Wisdom, identified as Torah, was a demiurgic agent of God in creation. However, in early rabbinic literature, such as Mek. d’R. Ishmael Pisḥa 14:64–69, implies that early Rabbis censored Philo’s heretical explanations regarding Gen 1:26–27, which already existed around the first century CE. See the translation in Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition, Based on the Manuscripts and Early Editions 2nd ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004), 111–12. The demiurgical activities of the hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom, also appear in the descriptions of Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels and New Testament texts (Jn 1:1; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15–18; Heb 1:2; Rev 3:14).

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

79

and divine Wisdom.187 This concretizes explicit evidence of the harmonization of the Greek Logos of Hellenistic philosophical traditions with Jewish Wisdom of Palestinian Jewish traditions. Along similar lines, Thomas H. Tobin also concludes that Philo’s Logos is explicit evidence reflecting a “Hellenistic Jewish biblical interpretation and speculation,” i.e., creative hermeneutics and expressions regarding the concept of God and Torah, encompassing and harmonizing the features of the multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism.188 This substantiates that Philo’s Logos explicitly shows a profound relationship with personified Wisdom in the creation context. As I will show later in this study, these themes repeat in the biblical and rabbinic concepts of Torah (Word of God or memra), which I will, in turn, examine in this study. Above all, these findings demonstrate that Philo’s Logos, in relation to Torah and personified Wisdom, appears not only as an angelic agent, who functions as a human-like image as a philosophical mediator which connects human beings and God but also as a Logos-centered hypostatic notion, which is in a proximity with God. Like the personification and hypostatization of wisdom, this authenticates Philo’s theological intentions and philosophical backgrounds based on a literary, exegetic, and hermeneutic strategy, which hypostatizes and personifies the Logos and Torah in the combination between Greek philosophy and the Jewish wisdom traditions. This eventually substantiates, unlike the hypostatic notions (i.e., personified Wisdom) in the Wisdom-centered tradition, the evidence of a Logos-centered hypostatic notion (i.e., Philo’s Logos), as a primitive form derived from Torah in a supposed Logos-centered tradition, which is manifest during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. In this context, I will further examine, in turn, the similar hypostatic notions of Torah, which appear close to personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos, such as the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah in order to prove the existence of the two traditions and the explicit evidence of the emergence and development of the two different kinds of the hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, throughout the history of Jewish thought. Consequently, Philo’s Logos provides broader critical implications for 187 Craig S. Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 1:345. Robert D. Middleton argues that the shift from Philo’s Logos to Torah is consistent with the overall rabbinic insistence that personified Wisdom in Prov 8 is Torah. He insists that there is a significant role played by Philo’s Logos in connecting between Greek Philosophy and rabbinic traditions. See Middleton, “Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel,” JQR 29.2 (1938): 101–3. 188 Thomas H. Tobin, “The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation,” CBQ 52.2 (1990): 268.

80

Chapter 1

the development of Jewish hypostatic notions of Torah, which are especially relevant to the Johannine Logos in early Christian tradition, to which I will presently turn. 2.4 The Johannine Logos On the basis of the previous examinations of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom, I now delve into the Johannine Logos. I will also show that Philo’s Logos is a missing and profound link between early Jewish thought and Christian thought. In so doing, I will place a special focus on Johannine Logos’s relationship to Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom by analyzing the intertextual nexuses between the Gospel of John and other early Christian, early Jewish, and later rabbinic sources. I first examine the backgrounds of the Johannine Logos, i.e., the provenance of the Gospel of John, the profound relationship between early Christianity and Hellenistic philosophies, and the relations and interactions between the Jewish communities in the Diaspora and the increased influences of Christianity during the late Second Temple period and rabbinic periods. Most scholars place the origin of the Gospel of John between 90 and 110 CE. Rudolf Bultmann also presumes the origin of the Johannine Prologue to be after the first century CE.189 Yet there are debates regarding the provenance of an “original hymn” of the Prologue and especially, the origin of the Johannine Logos which features prominently in the Prologue.190 Raymond E. Brown sug189 Rudolf Bultmann, The Gospel of John: A Commentary (Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1971), 12. Bultmann notes, “We should define the period for the composition and redactional edition of the Gospel as about 80–120 AD.” Raymond E. Brown, in The Gospel According to John I–XII (Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966), lxxx–lxxxiii, analyzes the dates of its composition and final editing in five stages by classifying the final redaction of the Gospel as the stage 5. He notes, “If the historical (earlier) tradition underlying the Gospel goes back to 40–60, and the first edition of the Gospel is dated somewhere between 70 and 85 (a dating which is very much a guess), then the five stages we have posited in the composition of the Gospel would cover over forty years of preaching and writing,” while considering the discovery of “several early 2nd-century papyri texts of John” (lxxxii). However, Brown emphasizes “at its outermost limits, AD 75 to 110, but the convergence of probabilities points strongly to a date between 90–110” (lxxxvi). He pinpoints that the positive arguments seem to point to “100–110 as the latest plausible date for the writing of the Gospel with strong probability favoring the earlier limit of 100” (lxxxiii). 190 Bultmann, in The Gospel of John, 13–29, insists that the Prologue is a revised Logos hymn in a mythic form that derived from the Gnostic community. However, Brown (lix–lxiv) says that the Prologue has considerable evidence to be a unique exegetic production within the Johannine community influenced by multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism. In addition, he discusses the relationships of Johannine thought to ancient Jewish thought in Philo’s works, biblical and rabbinic sources, and the Qumran

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

81

gests three main sources that can be considered as the origins of the Johannine Prologue: Gnosticism, Palestinian Judaism, and Hellenism.191 Bultmann attempts to discover the early impact of eastern gnostic speculations upon early Christianity and especially on the Johannine Prologue.192 He particularly reconstructs the origin of the Johannine Logos from the Gnostic “redeemer myth,” while emphasizing the strong influence of mythological Gnosticism had on it.193 He emphasizes that it is a revised Logos hymnic or mythic form that derived from the Gnostic mythology.194 By contrast, John A. T. Robinson notes that the Prologue reflects a close relationship with first-century Palestinian realia, i.e., Palestinian Judaism, which was in a deep interaction with Hellenistic influences and had a central impact on the formation of rabbinic Judaism.195 In this vein, several scholars, such as James D. G. Dunn, Francis J. Moloney, and James H. Charlesworth, traced linguistic and theological parallels between the texts. In particular, he (524) notes that “the Prologue’s description of the Word is far closer to biblical and Jewish strains of thought that it is to anything purely Hellenistic.” The Johannine prose of the discourses of Jesus is different from the other chapters with their narratives and theological reflections in the form of drama-rhetoric oriented approaches in the Gospel of John. This prose contains a quasi-poetic feature, such as “parallelism” and “rhythm” (cxxxii–cxxxvi). This shows that the Prologue contains both two kinds of genres: a poetic or hymnic form and a rhetoric prosaic form. Interestingly, this feature appears very similar to the form of Prov 8:22–31. 191 Brown, liii–lxv. Cf. John Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 22–23, 61,115. 192 Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 13–29. 193 Bultmann (9) also insists that “John is directly dependent on Gnostic traditions, and he uses these traditions in far greater measure than Philo and the other late Jewish writers.” Bultmann (7–9) also notes the possible evidence of the sources of the Johannine discourses outside of Judaism, such as the pre-Christian Gnosticism found in the Odes of Solomon and particularly in the writings of Mandeans. See also James H. Charlesworth, and R. Alan Culpepper, “Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John,” CBQ 35.3 (1973): 298–322; Charles H. Talbert, “The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity,” in The Development of Christology during the First Hundred Years, and Other Essays on Early Christian Christology (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011), 83–112. Brown (liv) also notes that Christian Gnostic works, such as the Gospel of Truth (Gos. Tr.), and the Gospel of Thomas (Gos. Thom.), which are based on ontological dualism, seem to be comparable to the Gospel of John. However, neither of these Gnostic works provides explicit evidence for a “source” of John’s Gospel. In fact, their allusions to ontological dualism, such as light/darkness division, are quite distinct from John. 194 Bultmann, in The Gospel of John, 22–25, insists that the concept of Johannine Logos does not directly have its origin in the “Judaic Wisdom myth” (22) and the “Stoic Logos” (24–25). He (24) notes that “It is enough to recognize that the mythological figure of the Logos has its home in a particular understanding of the world, namely, the Gnostic.” 195 John A. T. Robinson, “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John,” NTS 9.2 (1963): 128.

82

Chapter 1

Qumran texts, other Christian sources, such as the Johannine Prologue on the one hand, and Epistles of Paul, the Synoptic Gospels, and patristic period theology on the other.196 After the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, Charlesworth particularly tried to discover linguistic and theological parallels between the Gospel of John and the Qumran texts as part of an effort to understand the influences of Palestinian Judaism on the Johannine Logos.197 In addition, they investigated, in the Prologue, a strong influence of Greek and Hellenistic philosophies, such as Aristotelianism, middle-Platonism and Stoicism, as well as dualistic features, such as light and darkness.198 Dunn specifically examined the Jewish and Hellenistic backgrounds of the Johannine Prologue by analyzing the theological nexuses and hermeneutical (i.e., allegorical) similarities 196 James D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1996), 214–50; Francis J. Moloney presumes that the narrative and theological messages of the Prologue itself should be considered as a mirror or window introducing Jesus as Incarnate Logos. See Moloney, The Gospel of John: Text and Context (Boston: Brill, 2005), 9–22. Herman N. Ridderbos asserts that the intention of the Prologue is “to describe the background against which Jesus’ historical self-disclosure must be understood.” See Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997), 17. Andrew T. Lincoln, in The Gospel According to Saint John (BNTC 4; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; London; New York: Continuum, 2005), 109, comments, “The prologue’s profound theological implications emerge from a radical reshaping of Israel’s story. Israel’s God, its Scriptures and its symbols are now reconfigured around the one who is the subject of the Gospel’s own story. Genesis 1, Torah, Moses, Exodus 33 and 34, Wisdom, God’s Word, glory, the identity of the people of God, covenantal grace and truth, all help to interpret the distinctive significance of Jesus, but in the process are themselves reinterpreted in the light of what is believed to be the decisive revelation that has taken place in him.” Finally, Dwight M. Smith notes, “In discussing the background of the theology of the Gospel of John, it has seemed appropriate to refer to Paul and the Synoptic Gospels.” See Dwight M. Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of John (Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995), 56. 197 James H. Charlesworth, “The Fourth Evangelist and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Assessing Trends over Nearly Sixty Years,” in John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate, ed. Tom Thatcher (Atlanta: SBL, 2011), 161–63. 198 Dunn, in Christology in the Making, 231–40, notes that the Hellenistic influences on the Johannine vocabularies mainly are Greek philosophy, Stoic thought, Philo, and the Hermetica, which are Egyptian-Greek wisdom texts from second century CE. These philosophical nexuses also seem to appear in deuterocanonical books like Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. By contrast, Boyarin insists that the background of the Johannine Logos is a homiletic midrash in the rabbinic tradition, as well as Jewish Logos/memra theology, which was later developed to Logos Christology. See Boyarin, Border Lines, 129. Several scholars are still skeptical of Boyarin’s theory due to the lack of clarity in the nature and even existence of synagogical schools in either Palestine or Alexandria. Moreover, it does not appear to fit the anti-Jewish character of the Evangelist in Jn 9:22, 12:42 and 16:2.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

83

between the Johannine Logos and the other hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom, Torah (i.e., the Word of God), and Philo’s Logos.199 In this context, Virginia Burrus state that the Johannine Logos appears more as an upshot of “scriptural interpretation” than as a result of Platonic speculation based on Hellenistic influences.200 Some scholars, such as Burton L. Mack, place the theological and philosophical interactions between the Johannine community and Palestinian Judaism as instrumental in the ideological development of the Johannine Logos.201 Jo-Ann Brant also emphasizes, “there is a growing consensus that the Prologue must be read within the context of a Jewish speculative theology.”202 By contrast, John Ashton and Brown intriguingly assert that the origin of the Johannine Prologue – even if it was influenced to some extent by multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism – appears to be a direct and idiosyncratic composition by the Evangelist in the Johannine community.203 In this regard, Ashton elaborates a hypothetical reconstruction, which supports the view of a singular theology of the Johannine community, while excluding the view that the provenance and composition of the Gospel of John can be reconstructed simply from the Gnostic mythology and Hellenistic and rabbinic Judaism.204 This upshot is a

199 Dunn, 220–30, also examines the various influences of the pre-NT materials and discusses the significance of Philo’s allegorical interpretation of the Logos on the Johannine Logos as a hypostatic entity. 200 Virginia Burrus, “Creatio Ex Libidine: Reading Ancient Logos Differently,” in Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments, ed. Yvonne Sherwood and Kevin Hart (New York; London: Routledge, 2005), 144. 201 Burton L. Mack, “Wisdom Makes a Difference: Alternatives to ‘Messianic’ Configurations,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 44–47. Mack explains the shifting and integrating process from the Johannine Logos into an incarnate Logos. 202 Jo-Ann A. Brant, John (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 26. 203 Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 36–43, 160–98. Brown, lix–lxi, also notes that the Evangelist in a Jewish-Christian community wrote this hymn as a result of a conflict with Jewish authorities. The hymn is not an immediate result of the conflict, but a consequence of the debates surrounding the incarnation and the separation of the “grace and truth” of Jesus from the Torah of Moses. Peder Borgen shows that similarities with Philo’s exegeses and with Gen. Rab. reflect that the Evangelist attended a synagogical school with a curriculum of exegetical questions and answers. See Borgen, “Philo of Alexandria as Exegete,” in The Ancient Period: A History of Biblical Interpretation, ed. Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003), 126–29. According to Moloney, the Prologue seems to have been composed as a final section, after the Gospel of John had undertaken a compositional development within the Johannine community. See also Moloney, The Gospel of John, 52. 204 Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 15–35, 160–98.

84

Chapter 1

Johannine theological development of an idiosyncratic Christology.205 This theory shows that the origin of the Johannine Logos should not be just restricted by external influences, including the Hebrew Bible, Hellenism, and Hellenistic and rabbinic Judaism. Rather, the unique characteristics of Johannine Logos itself need to be considered in understanding its formative process. However, these preceding views still do not seem to elucidate entirely the backgrounds of the Johannine Logos. In this context, I will reexamine its compositional and exegetical intentions, as well as the theological and philosophical backgrounds of the author of the Prologue. I begin with an exegetical overview of the Johannine Prologue, highlighting its chiastic structure.206 Table 9

Chiastic structure of the Johannine Prologue

A The Origin and emergence of Logos in relation to God (1:1–5) B Witness of John the Baptist about the light (1:6–8) C Emergence of the light (1:9–11) D The purpose of emergence of the light: transition from the light to Logos (1:12–13) C’ Incarnation of the Logos as Jesus (1:14) B’ Witness of John the Baptist about Jesus Christ (1:15) A’ The Origin of Incarnate Logos/Jesus Christ in relation to Moses and God (1:16–18a)

205 Ibid., 36–43. It is conceivable that the formation of an idiosyncratic Christology eventually leads to a high Christology, which identifies Jesus with God and thereby caused the expulsion from the synagogues within Palestinian Judaism. 206 Ibid., 23–27. Brant mentions that we should be careful to reconstruct the Prologue in a rigid chiastic structure. I represent the appropriate chiastic juxtaposition, while referring to other analytic structures of the Johannine Prologue. In fact, there are various structures suggested, which are “discerned from the way in which the major editions of the Greek NT divide it.” See John F. McHugh, John 1–4 (ICC): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 78–79. McHugh mentions, “By far the most popular description (and in the present writer’s view, rightly so) is that which sees vv. 1–5 as speaking of the primordial existence of the Logos, and of is role in creation and history, of vv. 6–3 as outlining the historical advent of the Logos into the world, and of vv.14–18 as celebrating the Incarnation of the Logos.” I follow Brown’s classification of the four strophes in the Prologue. See Brown (1–2) asserts, that there is an “original hymn,” first (1–2) strophe, second (3–5) strophe, insertion (6–8), insertion (9–10), third (10–13) strophe, fourth (14, 16), strophe explanatory expansions (17–18), including additional materials pertaining to John the Baptist (vss. 6–9, vss. 15 R).

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

85

The descriptions of A’, B’, C’, supplement the descriptions of A, B, C in a more articulated form. A’ makes the origin and its meanings of Logos in A clear by connecting directly to the origin of Jesus. In B, John the Baptist witnesses the light whereas in B’, John explicitly witnesses Jesus. C alludes to the emergence of the light in relation to the Logos, while C’ alludes to the incarnation of Jesus in relation to the Logos. D has a critical role in bridging between A, B, C and A’, B’, C’, the paralleled statements in this chiastic structure.207 Interestingly, we can also discover that a poetic structure and metaphorical language is used through a “step parallelism” in the structure of vv. 1–5. The first strophe (vv. 1–2), ἐν ἀρχῇ in the opening phrase of the Prologue, seems to have a sense analogous to the translation of ‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ֵר‬in Gen 1:1 and Prov 8.208 Specifically, ἐν ἀρχῇ is paralleled in v. 1 and v. 2. The role of ἦν is to confirm that the Logos existed before the existence of the physical world.209 Table 10

“Step parallelism” in Jn 1:1–5a

1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεόν. 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο  καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν. 4 ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ἦν, καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ἦν τὸ φῶς τῶν ἀνθρώπων. 5 καὶ τὸ φῶς ἐν τῇ σκοτίᾳ φαίνει, καὶ ἡ σκοτία αὐτὸ οὐ κατέλαβεν.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was by (in company with)b God, and God was the Word. 2 He (the Word) was by (in company with) God in the beginning. 3 all came into being through him; without him nothing came into being 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men. 5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

a Brant, John, 28. b Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, 875.

207 Through the abrupt transition from the light to Logos in D, the purpose of emergence of the light, i.e., Incarnate Logos, seems to be dramatically emphasized in the middle of the Prologue. 208 Even if it cannot be guaranteed that the Evangelist directly exegetes the Genesis texts, there is an allusion to them and an intention to at least echo part of Gen 1 in the opening of the Prologue. 209 McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, 6.

86

Chapter 1

As John F. McHugh first says, “The sense of Jn 1:1a is therefore: ‘In the beginning, before the material world was created, there existed the Word of God, the Compassionate, the All-merciful.’”210 Specifically, πρὸς τὸν θεόν may be appropriately translated as “near God, or by God, or in company with God,” according to the lexicological usages.211 In this sense, the Logos, interestingly, appears to be portrayed as “a companion of God.”212 Regardless of many terminological interpretations and theological speculations about it, the Logos has an exalted and hypostatic status in relation to God. In this context, McHugh classifies the term λόγος as having possible five basic meanings: 1) a self-subsistent Form or idea in the Platonist sense; 2) internal concept or the external expression in the Stoic sense; 3) Mind (Νοῦς) for Plotinus and the Neoplatonists; 4) the Word of God in the Hebrew Bible; 5) the Aramaic term memra in the targums, “meaning literally the utterance or the Word of God.”213 The most striking and debatable sentence in the first strophe is θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος, “The Word too was God.”214 As James F. McGrath states, this expression is exegetically connected to a theological intention of dignifying the “exalted status” of Jesus through the association of the image of Logos with personified Wisdom.215 McHugh also notes that the Word of God in the Hebrew Bible can be identified with “divine Wisdom.”216 As Dunn asserts, a Greek and Hellenistic influence on the Johannine Prologue enhances the critical nexus of the Johannine Logos with the status and features of personified Wisdom.217 Indeed, the status of the Johannine Logos in the Prologue shows a significant nexus to the status and role of personified Wisdom in relation to God in the context of creation in Prov 8:22–31.218 This implies that the Evangelist elaborated the idea of personified Wisdom in the creation context while trying to motivate the audiences to 210 Ibid. McHugh mentions, “The Logos, the Memra, is ‘He Who is There’.” He does not reject the possibility of the classical interpretation that the Evangelist intended to include in his usage whatever the OT meant by the term Logos, and the Logos-memra interpretation, which refers to the Deity revealed in the phrase ‘I AM WHAT I AM’ in Ex 3:14. 211 Arndt, A Greek-English Lexicon, 875. 212 Brown, John I–XII, 21. 213 McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, 8. 214 The absence of article before Θεὸς implies that ὁ λόγος is the “subject,” and θεὸς is the “predicate.” See Nigel Turner, and James H. Moulton, A Grammar of New Testament Greek (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906), 183. 215 James F. McGrath, John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology (Cambridge, UK; New York; Cambridge University Press, 2001), 137–42. See also Herman N. Ridderbos, The Gospel According to John, 17. 216 McHugh, John 1–4, 6–9. Through various interpretations, McHugh alludes to the relationship between Torah (Word) and Wisdom, which is in proximity to God. 217 Dunn, Christology in the Making, 213–50. 218 I will conduct a detailed intertextual analysis in the next chapters.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

87

understand his theological intentions in terms of the incarnation of the Logos. It is also conceivable that Philo’s Logos played a critical role in understanding the Johannine Logos and the theology of its Incarnation of the divine Logos. The concept of Philo’s Logos, which can be “a second God” who is simultaneously a part of and separate from God, reflects the conception of the Johannine Logos as the Only Begotten Son. These relationships of other hypostatic notions with the Johannine Logos, as Brown expounded, explain the images and activities of Incarnate Jesus, which I will examine later in this study.219 Interestingly, the dualistic contrast between φῶς “light” and σκοτίᾳ “darkness” (vv. 4–5) shows explicitly the Hellenistic influences on the Johannine Prologue.220 The terms of light and darkness in the Prologue also allude to a significant connection with creation. In verse 3, there appears to be an emphatic poetic antithesis between πάντα “all” and οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν “nothing that has come into being,” and between δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο “through him” and χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο “without him.” In vv. 6–9, an insertion, which seems to be not part of the original hymn, the witness of John the Baptist is mentioned.221 The testimony of John the Baptist in vv. 6–8, 15, which are insertions, provides an authenticity to the Johannine narrative and messages, when considering the existence of considerable followers and comprehensive acknowledgement of John the Baptist around the age of Jesus. This insertion of the testimony of John the Baptist leads the readers to move from the “pre-creation, Genesis” mode to the quasi-narrative mode, which orients them to the Johannine narrative and sends the message that Jesus is not only Incarnate Logos but also the Son of God, as well as the Messiah.222 In the Johannine Prologue, we can also see the Hellenistic influences, which contain a blend of similar theological and philosophical languages, such as λόγος “word,” φως “light” and σκότος “darkness,” as well as αλήθεια “truth” and so forth.223 The use of these terms is implicitly intended for the expression of 219 Brown, John I–XII, 29. 220 Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of John, 16–17. Smith notes that in Qumran text, Community Rule (cols. 3 and 4), there are similar dualistic concepts and theological vocabularies to those found in Gnosticism and in the Gospel of John, such as world, life, the spirit of truth, falsehood, light, darkness, and unending light. 221 Brown, John I–XII, 22. 222 This implies that the Johannine Prologue is close to a rhetorical prose piece, which addresses an abstract entity, rather than a formal encomium. 223 Even if philosophical languages and terms do not frequently appear in the Gospel of John, there are shared vocabularies between the Gospel of John and Philo’s works, such as λόγος “word,” φως “light,” and σκότος “darkness.” See Philo, Opif. viii, 31–33: τὸ δὲ ἀόρατον νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο θείου λόγου γέγονεν “Now that invisible light perceptible only by mind had come into being as an image of the Divine Word” (31); μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ νοητοῦ φωτὸς ἀνάλαμψιν, ὃ

88

Chapter 1

salvation of Jewish people and humankind. The term “light” in vv. 9–12, alludes to a similar notion of separating sons of light and sons of darkness, or the Jewish sectarians at Qumran from the main Jewish community.224 Through the antithesis, the Evangelist asserts the purposeful emergence of the light towards the significance of ζωὴ “life,” in vv. 10–13, by emphasizing the role of Logos as a life-giver and life-sustainer. In this sense, ὁ κόσμος in vv. 10–11 appears not to be merely the physical Universe, while people who lived with sin and rejected the Logos, i.e., Jesus in Jn 1:10–11 appears to be “the world” which had come into being through the Logos, i.e., δι’ αὐτοῦ “through him” (Jesus Christ).225 The purpose of the emergence of the light, i.e., Logos, is to give ἐξουσίαν “the authority” to τοῖς πιστεύουσιν εἰς τὸ ὄνομα “those who believe in his name” έκνα Θεοῦ γενέσθαι “to become the children of God.”226 In this context, the Evangelist attempts the intersectional change between the light and the Logos (Word) through the parallel between vv. 4–5 and vv. 10–13, and the shift from the light to Jesus via the Logos.227 In particular, verses 9–10 illustrate a process of transfer from cosmic Logos to Incarnate Logos. The move from the light to Jesus is a transitional point from Logos (Wisdom) to the incarnation of Logos. In the third strophe (vv. 11–13), the ultimate goal of the incarnation is to give the gift and power of being children of God to those who believe in Jesus. Strikingly in the fourth strophe (vv. 14–16), v. 14a, ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο “The Logos became flesh,” refers directly to the incarnation of Jesus. This verse 14a, and ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός “the only begotten [only one of his kind] Son, who is in the bosom of the Father,” provide a critical allusion to the theological relationships between the Johannine Logos and the other hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos. In other words, the Johannine Logos appears to be similar to Philo’s Logos, which is an example of λόγος informed by personified Wisdom as a heavenly agent or as a

πρὸ ἡλίου γέγονεν, ὑπεχώρει τὸ ἀντίπαλον σκότος “after the kindling of the intelligible light, which preceded the sun’s creation, darkness its adversary withdraw” (33). Philo, Somn. I. viii, 75: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστι, “God is light.” The Evangelist uses some philosophical language, but John’s Greek actually seems to show the influence of non-professional Greek rhetorics and philosophies in contrast with Philo’s more philosophic Greek. 224 Smith, The Theology of the Gospel of John, 16–17, 53–55. 225 McHugh, John 1–4, 40–41. 226 Cf. Philo, Conf. xxviii, 144–46. Philo explains the Logos (Word) as God’s First-born. Philo writes that “a Son of God is the Word,” and “those who live in the knowledge of the One are rightly called ‘Sons [or children] of God’ (Dt xiv 1).” 227 Interestingly, this “light-metaphor” of the Johannine Logos appears in the symbolic motif of a “light-metaphor” of transcendent Wisdom in the thought of Philo, and later in that of the ḥokhmah in medieval kabbalistic traditions, which I will examine later in this study.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

89

hypostasis of Yahweh.228 The Evangelist’s use of the Logos theologically plays as a communicative means between God and humankind, which reveals the secret and salvation of God through the incarnation of Jesus.229 The term σαρξ “flesh,” as a counterpart of Logos alludes to a theologically significant matter. In particular, the Evangelist appears to emphasize the incarnation of Logos into flesh and blood of Jesus as reflecting the revelation and salvation of God. Brown, furthermore, expounds upon a profound connection between Incarnate Logos and personified Wisdom while thereby emphasizing the divine origin of Jesus, which is derived from the identification of personified Wisdom with Philo’s Logos and Johannine Logos, i.e., the culmination of a Jewish wisdom tradition running through early Wisdom literature.230 Indeed, the images and activities of personified Wisdom appear to be compatible with the activities and images of Incarnate Logos (Word) and the ministry of Jesus, which reflect the revelatory performance of God in the world.231 One of the interesting points is that in Jn 6:41–58, the Evangelist asserts that the “flesh” and blood of Jesus is the “true food” and drink.232 More interestingly, Keener explains its similar symbolic analogy to “food and drink” in personified Wisdom’s invitation in Prov 9.233 Indeed, the rhetorical expression of “food and drink” in the account of personified Wisdom further offers a critical insight into that of “flesh and blood” in the 228 Brant, John, 26. In this sense, the Evangelist’s theological use of Logos alludes to Philo’s Logos in the creation context. 229 Through John 1–6, the speeches of Jesus are deeply related to His passion, death, and resurrection. The rhetoric method of “flesh” seems to be directly related to the ultimate purpose of the revelation of God’s salvation. In the “Bread of Life” discourse in Jn 6:41–58, the Evangelist asserts the flesh and blood of Jesus is the true, real food and drink, which assures union with the Son and Father as the source of eternal life in the Prologue. 230 Brown, Appendix II: The “Word,” 519–24. 231 Brown (29) expounds not only the presence of the incarnate Word in the world but also the rejection by the world that does not recognize the Word (10c), despite the existence of Jesus who has come into the world (Jn 3:19, 7:46, 4:5). 232 Interestingly, the rhetorical analogy between “food and drink” and “flesh and blood” already appears to in a terminological, phraseological, and theological sources of the Gospel of John, including early Jewish sources, such as Prov 9, Sir 1:1–4; 15:3; 24:8, 19–21; 32:1–13, as well as Wis 9:1–2, 4. These passages in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon are related to a concept of eating and drinking in relation to personified Wisdom which provides the righteous with ἄρτον συνέσεως “bread of understanding” and ὕδωρ σοφίας “water of wisdom” in a banquet. In this sense, the character of the banquet is also linked to an imagery of eating and drinking. This imagery and the motif of eating and drinking of personified Wisdom appears similar to those in the activities and ministries of Jesus as Incarnate Logos in the Prologue. 233 Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1:682. Personified Wisdom in Prov 9 and Sir 4:19–21 alludes to repeated thirst, whereas Jesus promises “never thirst again.”

90

Chapter 1

account of Incarnate Logos, which I will examine in detail later in this study.234 Furthermore, the narrative of “the origin of the Logos and its indwelling” in Jn 1:14b, appears analogous to portrayals of personified Wisdom in early Jewish sources, such as Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.235 Finally, the Evangelist contrasts, in v. 17, ὁ νόμος, “Law” which is credited to Moses and ἡ χάρις καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια “grace and truth” which is credited to Jesus.236 Some scholars, such as Erwin R. Goodenough, are doubtful whether the Logos, Wisdom, and other variants were widespread images, and whether they were generally expressed as mediator figures in a theological and philosophical system of the first-century or even second-century Judaism.237 However, through this examination of the exegetical and hermeneutical features of the Johannine Prologue, we have seen that the Johannine Logos appears as a derivative form of the hypostatic notions of Torah as a mediator, such as Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom. This examination shows the direct or indirect interactions within multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenized, and rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity. It corroborates that the Johannine Logos not only appears to be closer to Philo’s work than to other early Jewish sources 234 Clifford, Proverbs, 32. Clifford observes, “Jesus speaks in long discourses,” “Jesus recruits disciples” and “gives the bread [and wine] of life” in a similar form with Woman Wisdom. See also Brown, John I–XII, 32. 235 Brant, John, 26. Jn 1:14b; ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας, “The Word became flesh and made His dwelling among us. We have seen His glory, the glory of the [only Son] from the Father, full of grace and truth.” The concept of “indwelling” is profoundly related to the rabbinic and Jewish mystical concept of shekhinah, which I will examine later in this study. 236 McHugh, John 1–4, 67. In addition, we can see that “The essential nature of the Greek concept of νόμος has something in common with the Greek gods.” See Hermann Kleinknecht, “νόμος,” (A 2, 3) in Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, ed. Gerhard Kittel, and trans. Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1964), 4:1033. In the LXX, ‫ תורה‬is the “vast majority of cases translated νόμος (some 200 times out of 220)” (Boyd Gutbrod, “νόμος” (B 7, 8), 4:1046). In rabbinic Judaism, the Law is denoted by the term ‫( תורה‬Gutbrod, “νόμος” (D III 2, 3), 1082–83). In the Johannine Prologue, νόμος can usually be translated as ‫תורה‬, which means the whole teachings in the Law, as it does in the Hebrew Bible. However, the point is that in the Johannine Prologue, νόμος in v. 17, which primarily signifies the Deuteronomistic laws in the written Torah, has no “possibility for regulating human or even Christian action,” and it is shown as the first instance of revelation, in the sense that “it is set in confrontation with Jesus.” 237 Erwin R. Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr: An Investigation into the Conceptions of Early Christian Literature and Its Hellenistic and Judaistic Influences (Amsterdam: Philo, 1968), 140–41; Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 248. Some scholars, such as Boyarin, who attempt to interpret the meanings of the Logos within the context of Jewish midrash, importantly consider the translations of either ‫( דבר‬word) or ‫( חכמה‬wisdom) in Jewish wisdom traditions into the Logos. They assume that the Prologue can be a kind of homily or midrash, which means a retelling of a biblical story through the exegetical Jewish wisdom tradition on a passage, such as Gen 1:1.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

91

but also appears as a striking copy of Philo’s Logos in its relation to personified Wisdom as can be seen from the depiction of the images and activities of the Logos as the creation and revelation of God. Nonetheless, it appears that these external influences do not compromise the unique characteristics of the Johannine Prologue. The exegetical and rhetorical features in the images of the Johannine Logos corroborate not only an intertextual and theological relationship between the Johannine Logos and other hypostatic notions but also the unique idea of the Johannine Logos and the theology of its incarnation, which were essentially founded through creative complex operations fused with various interactive influences. This examination shows explicit evidence of a particular hermeneutic strategy based on John’s theological intentions and philosophical backgrounds, which combines the concept of Greek Logos, as expressed Philo’s Logos, with the concept of Jewish Wisdom, as expressed in a Hellenistic Jewish tradition, and thereby create the images of the Johannine Logos. In this sense, the images of the Logos in the Johannine Prologue validate an exegetical, philosophical, and theological nexus with the images of personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos. Specifically, the images of the Johannine Logos convey not only an image of the Son of God as an angelic mediator like Philo’s Logos but also Incarnate Logos in a manner similar to the images of personified Wisdom, as well as an image of the Messiah. This demonstrates that both the features of the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah explicitly appear in the images of the Johannine Logos, as a result of the profound interactions of the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered traditions, which were manifest during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. I will further discuss this subject later in this study in order to concretize the intertextual and theological relationships of the Johannine Logos to various hypostatic notions of Torah, and the formulation of the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, as well as the existence of the two supposed traditions through the history of Jewish thought. 2.5 Memra As I described earlier, the concept of Torah appears to have been centralized within Palestinian Judaism, including in rabbinic Judaism around the first century CE. It is notable that the Rabbis attempted to understand and represent God as a tangible and substantial God in their practical life, while simultaneously defending a monotheistic and transcendent understanding of God from the problematic theological issues (e.g., the Godhead or Trinity).238 In 238 According to Boyarin, the Rabbis’ subjective assurance of the presence of God overwhelmed the necessity of the doctrinal constitution of the concepts of God. This tendency was part of a normal spirituality rooted in everyday life. See Boyarin, Border Lines,

92

Chapter 1

this context, the Rabbis implicitly appear to focus on the term, concept, and image of Torah, itself, instead of using its hypostatic notions by idiosyncratically reformulating the concept of God and Torah through rabbinic exegetical and hermeneutical strategies. However, the conceptual changes (i.e., hypostatization and personification) of various hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, generally do not frequently appear in rabbinic and midrashic literature. Nonetheless, the critical change of the rabbinic concept of Torah can be gleaned from some texts of the midrashic and targumic literature. R. Hoshaya of Caesarea, in the classical Palestinian midrash Gen. Rab., states that God examined the Torah as a ‘blueprint’ for the creation of the world.239 This midrash radically hypothesizes the pre-existence of the theological Torah before the creation of the world, despite an inner conflict in rabbinic thought, i.e., the subtle conflict between a preexistent Torah and the idea that the Torah was revealed at Sinai.240 One of the striking instances regarding the conceptual change of Torah in rabbinic literature is the hypostatic notion of memra (‫ ) ֵמ ְימ ָרא‬in Aramaic in the targumic literature.241 Interestingly, the term memra, which appears as one of the rabbinic concepts of Torah, is, from a semantic perspective, related to the philosophical concept of Logos in Greek. The memra, which is an infinitive noun form derived from the Hebrew root amar (‫)אמר‬, is used as a semantically interchangeable term with the Hebrew term Word, davar (‫ )דבר‬in the Hebrew Bible, which denotes “spoken words,” or “word(s) of God,” in ancient Near East tradition.242 According to lexicographers in general, most usages of the ‘words 129. This also implies that God does not come forcibly to human beings. Rather, God comes in proportion to the human capacity of understanding and receiving God, as God is radically a subjective experience. Each person can experience God’s presence in a variety of ways to meet the needs of their unique temperament. 239 In this midrash, R. Eliezer b. Zadok and R. Akiva speak of the Torah as an instrument in the creation of the world within the doctrine of revelation of rabbinic Judaism. 240 Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 287. 241 Jastrow Marcus, A Dictionary of the Targumim: the Talmud Bible and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature (New York: Pardes, 1950), 1695; Martin J. McNamara, The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch (Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1966), 38–41. The Aramaic word ‘targum’ (‫ )תרגומא‬which literally means ‘translate,’ ‘interpret,’ or ‘order,’ also conveys a feature of ‘paraphrase’ and exegetical features. It is generally believed that the targums (to the Pentateuch, the Prophets, etc.) were officially read in the synagogues. 242 Ernst Jenni, and Claus Westermann, Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament, 3 vols. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997), 1:325–32. The Word of God (e.g., Gen 15:1, Num 12:6, Sam 3:21, etc.) appears approximately 240 times in the Hebrew Bible, mainly occurring in the Pentateuch. The Word of God similarly appears as the memra of God (or the Lord) in the targumic texts, such as Tg. Neof. to Dt 4:33, 5:5, to Gen 1:26-27, to Ex 14:18–19; Tg. Ps.-J. to Gen 15:4. Lexicographers note different etymological origins of ‫דבר‬, such as “to be behind,” and “word” or “to speak.” In the Hebrew Bible, ‫ דבר‬is a substantive, which means a Word, thing, or something.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

93

of God’ in the Pentateuch, corresponding to memra, are used for the meanings of commandments, covenantial statements, prophecy, and self-revelation of God.243 Against this background, scholars, such as Stephen A. Kaufman, Martin J. McNamara, Paul V. M. Flesher, and Alejandro D. Macho, analyzed and estimated the final dating of and the finally compiled forms of the Palestinian Targums (Tg. Neof., Cairo Geniza, and Targum Tosefta) and the Babylonian Targums (Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J) by comparing the Aramaic features of the targums with the spoken Aramaic dialects of Palestine since the first century CE.244 In this context, 243 Ibid., 325–32. It is also used as object and subject, such as “commandment,” especially in Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomistic works. In the prophetic literature, ‫ דבר‬means a “self-revelation of God” (332) which alludes to a relationship between the word of God and the prophetic word. The important point is that the term ‫ דבר‬seems to be semantically identical with Torah in the Wisdom literature. However, ‫ דבר‬does not seem to be used as a personification, except for the cases which are found as in Ps 107:20, “To those to whom he sent his word to heal them” and Ps 147:15 “Who sent his word to earth.” In these verses, we can see a divine attribute that is “separate from the deity, considered autonomous and understood as an independent entity or even as a special deity” (332). This also implies even a personification of the divine word. 244 Stephen A. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and Their Use in the Study of First Century Texts” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. Derek R. G. Beattie, and Martin J. McNamara (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 119–30. The date of targums is a controversial issue. Qumranists, such as Frank M. Cross, date the Palestinian Targums texts composed around the “second, third, or even late fourth century BCE, however later the script of the copies of that document recovered from Qumran may be” (122). The relationship between the spoken Aramaic of first-century Palestine and the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum(s) cannot be ignored. Joseph A. Fitzmyer categorizes the chronological phases as follows: 1) Old Aramaic, until 700 BCE; 2) Official (Imperial) Aramaic c.700 to 200 BCE; 3) Middle Aramaic 200 BCE to 200 CE which shows local dialects, such as in Nabatean, Qumran, and so forth; 4) Late Aramaic roughly 200 to 700 CE (esp. 72). See Fitzmyer, A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, c1979), 57–84. This shows that the first and final dating are still not fixed exactly, while most of targums (“the primitive basic texts of both Tg. Onq. and Jonathan of the Prophets”) are dated after second centuries CE (Kaufman, 122). For this reason, it is not reasonable to exclude the study of memra in the targums from the discussion of the Word of God and Torah, as well as from the discussion of Greek Logos. It is generally estimated that the Aramaic language of the Palestinian Targums contains Greek and Latin loanwords, dating from around the third century CE. However, for McNamara, since these loanwords are also found in ancient rabbinic and Christian texts from the first century BCE onwards (Tobit, Pseudo-Daniel, Genesis Apocryphon, Patriarchs’ books, and fragments of the Targum Book of Job, parts of Targum Leviticus 16, and the Mishnah). McNamara, Targum and New Testament, 193–96. It is theoretically possible that they include Aramaic and Hebrew language of the Palestine Targums around the first century CE. Fitzmyer, “Presidential Address: The Languages of Palestine in the First Century A.D.,” CBQ 32.4 (1970): 525; John W. Bowker, The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 29–92.

94

Chapter 1

F. M. Cross even estimates the form of the Aramaic dialect of the targum manuscripts found at Qumran as “second, third or even late fourth century BCE.”245 Fleischer states that the proto-Palestinian Targums (Proto-PT) and Targums Onkelos (Proto-TO), written under the auspices of a group of priests in Jerusalem, had been already existed since the early first century CE before the destruction of the Second Temple, and this was the origin of the Primitive Palestinian Targums.246 245 Frank M. Cross, “Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran,” in Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text, ed. S. Talmon (Cambridge, Maas.: Harvard University Press, 1975), 149–56. Stephen A. Kaufman argues that the features of Aramaic found in the Qumran manuscripts can be critical evidence for the existence and development of the Literary Aramaic used in the Persian Empire. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and Their Use in the Study of First Century Texts,” in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, ed. Derek R. G. Beattie, and Martin J. McNamara (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994), 120–23. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 85–92. It is worth noting that the use of Aramaic in the history of Israel dates back to the Persian period, i.e., the times of Ezra and Nehemiah after the Babylonian Exile. However, it is difficult to exactly elucidate the relationships (similarities and differences) of the Official, Middle, and Later Aramaics, with the colloquial Aramaic languages used in accordance with different locations, such as Jerusalem, Judea, and Galilee. In this context, McNamara (89–91) emphasizes the possibility of the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targum (generally dated later than the third century CE) as a language spoken in the age of Jesus since Aramaic despite the philological questions, since “the Aramaic vocabulary (e.g., talitha) or phraseology which is independent of philological forms” appears in the NT texts, which are earlier than the third century CE. 246 Paul V. M. Flesher, The Targums: A Critical Introduction, ed. Bruce D. Chilton (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011), 109–29; 151–66; idem, “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in Their Social and Linguistic Context,” in The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E., ed. Birger Olson and Magnus Zetterholm (Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003), 467–508. While the general usages of the Aramaic dialect of the Palestinian Targums refers to the early third century CE, the early data of the main Palestinian Targums show similarities with the Aramaic from around the first century CE. In this sense, McNamara and Klein emphasize the existence of a primitive Palestinian Targum tradition, which reflects the earliest stages of translations and interpretation, and which were later developed into the complete versions of the Palestinian Targums and Targum Onkelos. McNamara, Targum and Testament Revised, 5–7, 272–73. Hayward also analyzes that that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is estimated to be at least before second century CE which includes some texts of the Palestinian Targums and was later influenced by a primitive Targum Onkelos and midrash. Hayward, “The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments,” JJS 40 (1989): 7–30. Kaufman concludes that Targum Pseudo-Jonathan is not a mere copy of Onkelos but contains another ‘midrash material’ with its own distinct language, grammar, and lexical features. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums,” 118–30, 122. Tg. Ps.-J. is viewed as a combination

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

95

Against this background, scholars investigated various usages of memra and its development process in the Palestinian Targum and the Babylonian Targums, as well as the Targum prophets. Interestingly, the memra in the targums is also translated and paraphrased in various ways, and its characteristics, which implicitly appear in conversations with the patriarchs and prophets. In particular, the memra, which has a textual nexus with the term ‘Word of God’ (Gen 15:1; Num 12:6; Sam 3:21, etc.) in the Hebrew Bible texts, offers a critical implication for its anglicization, personification, and personification. There are also some alluded passages, such as Ps 107:20, “He sent his word, and healed them,” and Ps 33:6, “By the word of the Lord, were the heavens made.” In this context, some scholars, such as Siegmund Maybaum, Moses Ginsburger, and George F. Moore, perceived the memra as a mere buffer-word and exegetical and hermeneutic apparatus paraphrased euphemistically to avoid direct anthropomorphic representations of God in the Hebrew Bible.247 Hayward also states that the usages of memra in the targums are in line with a rabbinic exegetical and hermeneutical strategy to avoid anthropomorphisms in speaking of God, and to preserve a symbolic notion of His in-corporeality.248 In this vein, we can infer that the development of personification and hypostazation of various forms of the Aramaic from Tg. Onq. and the Palestinian Targums. Due to the ambiguity and complexity of the Aramaic, Géza Vermès conversely regards Targum Onkelos as dependent on Targum Pseudo-Jonathan. Vermès, “The Targumic Version of Genesis IV 3–16,” Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (1962): 98–99. Macho sees the Aramaic primitive form of Tg. Ps.-J. is used in the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch, which fall between the first century CE and the second century CE. Alejandro D. Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums,” in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959 (Leiden: Brill, 1960), 229–36. 247 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 154–55; Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981), 1–10; Siegmund Maybaum, Die Anthropomorphien Und Anthropopathien Bei Onkelos Und Den Spätern Targumim: Mit Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Ausdrücke Memra, JeKara Und Schechintha (Breslau: Schletter, 1870), esp. 66–110; Moses Ginsburger, Die Anthropomorphism in den Thargumin (Inaug.  – diss., University of Strassburg; Braunschweig: Appelhans & Pfenningstorff, 1891), 1–52; George. F. Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron,” HTR 15.1 (1922): 54; idem, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950), 1:417–19. In Tg. Onq. to Gen 6:6, the literary euphemism to avoid the danger of the anthropomorphism is expressed through His memra (of the Lord). M. Aberbach, and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with an English Translation of the Text (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1982), 52–53. 248 Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra (Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981), 3.

96

Chapter 1

of the memra in the targums might have been difficult within rabbinic Judaism, which presupposes the divine transcendence. Nonetheless, scholars, such as Alejandro D. Macho and Martin J. McNamara, criticize the inconsistency of euphemistic usages of the memra, while investigating a wide range of the hypostatic notions and their theological implications.249 Brown, while acknowledging the function of memra in alleviating the danger of anthropomorphism and emphasizing the divine transcendence, emphasizes the existence of a theological implication in specific usages of ‘the memra of the Lord’ in the targums.250 In a similar vein, scholars, such as D. M. León, P. Billerbeck, and Vinzenz Hamp, by examining the concepts and images of memra as a creator, revelator, and savior, emphasize the theological and hermeneutic implications.251 Scholem also notes that the memra of targums is not only a literary buffer-word against the anthropomorphism but also a special form of biblical terms, showing the omnipresence and immanence of God, which convey a critical implication for various hypostatic notions dynamically conceptualized and theologized in late antique and medieval Jewish mystic literature.252 In the texts of the Old Testament itself (Ps 33:6, 9; 107:20; 147:15–20; 148:5–6), the Word of God, corresponding to memra in the targums, appears as an angelic being independent of God. Specifically in the translation of Tg. Onq. to Num 27:14, “My memra” which is meant as the manifestation of God, explicitly appears as an independent angelic messenger or agent instead of God 249 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 154–61; Macho, “El Logos y el Espiritu Santo,” Atlantida 1 (1963): 381–96. 250 Brown notes that the memra in Tg. Onq. does not a literary personification. Brown, John I–XII, 117. M. Aberbach, and B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Genesis, 100, 118, 226–30. Brown emphasizes its unique Christological thought in the Johannine Logos beyond external influences, although he recognizes that it was more influenced by a biblical Jewish thought than Philo’s Logos. Brown, John I–XII, 519–24. 251 D. Muñoz León, Dios-palabra: Memrá en los Targumím del Pentateuco (Granada: Santa Rita, 1974); Hermann. L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch 2 (1924): 302–33; Vinzenz Hamp, Der Begriff “Wort” in den aramäischen Bibelübersetzungen: Ein exeget. Beitr. zur Hypostasen-Frage u. zur Geschichte d. Logos-Spekulationen (PhD diss., Neuer Filser-Verlag, 1938). 252 G. Scholem, On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah, trans. J. Neugroschel, ed. J. Chipman (New York: Schocken Books, 1991), 181–82. Unlike Maimonides, Nahmanides notes that the memra is profoundly connected to the divine-like and hypostatic images of Elohim rather than a literary euphemism to avoid anthropomorphism. Naḥmanides, and Avraham Y. Finkel, Ramban Commentary on the Torah: Selected Portions of Nachmanides, vol. 1. 1st ed. (Scranton, PA: Yeshivath Beth Moshe, 2004), 486–98; Moses Maimonides and Shlomo Pines, The Guide of the Perplexed (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963), Part I. chs. 27–28.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

97

Himself.253 The ‘memra of the Lord’ or ‘My memra’ (Tg. Neof. to Gen 1:20–21; 26–27) in the context of creation appear as an angelic mediator against the backdrop of various surrounding vocabularies, and thereby convey its theological implications.254 Scholars, such as Maybaum and Moore, believe that the memra in the targums, which is a mere euphemism for God, and does not contain the concept of a philosophical mediator like Philo’s Logos.255 However, the memra in the targums mainly appears as a heavenly or angelic agent of God who sustains the course of nature and conveys a secret meaning of the Torah.256 The use of memra in the Aramaic exegesis is a striking parallel to the Logos, insofar as both terms are related to the Torah (or Law) of God.257 As John L. Ronning also suggests, conceivably in a semantic and exegetical dimension, the memra appears to profoundly related to the concept of the Logos, which is a Hellenistic element of Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos, which I will examine later in detail in this study.258 In all, it implies that the memra in the targums appears phenomenologically as an allegorical term, which

253 Alexander Sperber, Abraham Berliner, and Israel Drazin, Targum Onkelos to Numbers: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary (based on the A. Sperber and A. Berliner edition) (Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1998), 270. 254 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 147, 160–61. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 100–101. In the Hebrew Bible, the angel who appeared to Abraham (Gen 17:1–11) and the angel who wrestled with Jacob (Gen 32:13–32) were later described as YHWH Himself. Interestingly, there are cases in which shekhinah (or glory) appears in parallel with the concept of memra and its images (Tg. Onq, Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof. to Gen 17:1–22 and Dt 1:42–43, etc.). Scholem was skeptical of shekhinah as an angelic mediator in rabbinic literature, including the Targums, but later acknowledges this feature of an angelic mediator which explicitly appears in Midrash Proverbs 22:29, etc. See the translation in Burton L. Visotzky, trans., The Midrash on Proverbs (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992), 99, 145, 156; Scholem, Zur Kabbala Und Ihrer Symbolik (Zürich: Rhein-Verlag, 1960), 48, 58–62, 68, 119. 255 Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology,” 52. 256 Boyarin, Border Lines, 116; Marion J. Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” JECS 3.3 (1995): 263. 257 Boyarin sees the origin and features of the Johannine Logos as derived from ancient rabbinic midrash due to the similar literary form (epic prose) of the Johannine Prologue, although it is controversial. Boyarin, “Logos, a Jewish Word: John’s Prologue as Midrash,” The Jewish Annotated New Testament, ed. Amy J. Levine and Marc Z. Brettler (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 546–48. 258 John L. Ronning, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 13. Ronning mentions that memra, which is derived from the Aramaic root ‫אמר‬, may be used simply as a translation of a Hebrew word for “word.” He mentions that the word is related to the Logos when it is used as “a circumlocution for the divine name.”

98

Chapter 1

angelomorphizes the Law (ὁ νόμος) in a manner similar to Philo’s Logos, and thereby creates an angelic image of Torah. Unlike the angelic image of memra, the memra also appears as a divine-like and hypostasized image through the literary (personified, anthropomorphized, and deified) expressions of various surrogates or hypostatic mediators, such as voice, light, and shekhinah in a sense of divine immanence and transcendence.259 In the Tg. Ps.-J. and Tg. Neof., it appears, instead of God as ‘the voice of the memra of the Lord’ (Dt 4:33) or ‘the voice of his memra’ (Dt 4: 36), and ‘the sound (‫ )קול‬of the memra of the Lord’ (Dt 5:5), which reflect a divine-like and hypostatic image of the Word of God.260 Interestingly, this concept of a divine-like or hypostatic voice can be found in the passages, such as Ex 19:19, Num 7:89–8:1 in the Hebrew Bible itself and are implicitly connected to the Revelation of Jn 1:10, 12, 15, 4:1 on the New Testament. Charlesworth also suggests that “it is well known that both many Jews and many early Christians knew about a heavenly Voice; what is not clear is whether by circa AD 100 there had developed a concept of a heavenly being, the Voice.”261 Ernest G. Clarke notes that the memra, understood as a hypostatic notion in the targums, also sometimes refers to the appearance of the hypostatic voice or power instead of God Himself.262 In the translation of Tg. Ps.-J. to Dt 4:33, “the voice of the memra of the Lord” is used instead of God, while “the voice of his memra” is used in the translations of Tg. Neof. to Dt 4:36.263 As Azzan Yadin and Hayward also observed, the memra in the targums can be regarded as the identical concept as ‘a hypostatized voice’ in the sense that both are the actual source of revelations.264 Furthermore, it is notable that in a context close to the voice, the 259 Keener and Moore tried to examine the features of the hypostatization and personification of various hypostatic notions associated with the memra. Keener, 1:349; Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology,” 54. McNamara, Targum and Testament, 221–24. 260 Ernest G. Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998), 19–24; McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987), 39–40. 261 Charlesworth, “The Jewish Roots of Christology,” 23. As Charlesworth suggests, even if it is not easy to identify the development process of the hypostatization of ‘voice,’ it is plausible that Jews and early Christians were aware of the existence of the personified concept of ‘a heavenly voice’ around the end of the first century CE. 262 Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan, 23–24. 263 Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, 23–24. Instead of “God,” “the voice of the Memra of the Lord” is used in the translation of Pseudo-Jonathan on Dt 4:33 and “the voice of his Memra” in the translations of Tg. Neof. of Dt 4:36. 264 Azzan Yadin, “‫ קול‬as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible,” JBL (2003): 616. As Robert Hayward points out, the memra in Neofiti indicates a divine revelatory activity as ʾHYH (ʾehyeh). Hayward, “The Memra of YHWH and the Development of Its Use in Targum Neofiti,” JJS 25 (1974): 417–18.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

99

memra in the targums (esp. Tg. Neof) as it relates the term ʾHYH (ehyeh), which is used as an apparatus for expressing the Divine Presence as a self-designation of God in His speech.265 It shows that the usages and meanings of memra in the targums give a specific theological implication to the Divine Name (YHWH; the Tetragrammaton, HE IS/WILL BE THERE). Hayward notes that the memra in the targum texts, rather than a personification or a hypostasis, functions as a substitution for YHWH, while acknowledging a critical implication for the literary relationships with other hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah in the targums.266 Similar to the case of the ‘hypostatized Voice’, scholars, such as McNamara, explain that ‘the shekhinah (or shekhinta [‫ ]שכינתא‬in Aramaic) of the Lord’ which is a symbolic depiction of God’s divine nature and works (existence, revelation, redemption, creation, etc.), appears as a similar and interchangeable term, in a sense of an anti-anthropomorphic euphemism along with the memra.267 “Your memra” and “Your Glory of the Lord” in Tg. Neof. to Gen 1:3–5, 16–17, 26–28, 2:2–3, and “the Glory of the shekhinah of the Lord” in Ex 24:10 illustrate a hypostatized concept and image of shekhinah itself.268 Specifically, in a liturgical ode of midrashic nature of the ‘four nights’ in Tg. 265 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 93–95, 154. In the Targum to the Book of Job (11Q10; Job 28:9, 33:8, 36:32, 39:27, etc.) in Qumran, which is considered the oldest targum manuscript, the Aramaic mʾmr with (‫ )א‬appears in orthography. Considering that the memra also appears in Fragment Targum to Leviticus (4Q156) in Qumran and the Apocrypha (1Q20 [1QapGen ar]), as Hayward noted, I think that the idea of memra was born based on the theology of the Divine Name along with the Wisdom literature over the Second Temple period of anti-Sadducee priests and scribes. Hayward, Divine Name, 111–45. 266 Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, 1–53 (esp. 5–7). Hayward also notes a possibility of the identification of memra with God’s mercy in rabbinic literature (53). Nahmanides disagrees with Maimonides, who sees the use of the targumic terms, such as memra and shekhinah as a means of avoiding anthropomorphic descriptions of God in order to defend a notion of incorporeality of God. Nahmanides, however, holds a mystical and symbolic meaning of these terms. See Nathaniel Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 1999), 5–7; Max Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, 2nd ed. (New York: Blaisdell, 1965), 325–36. The rabbinic and targumic ideas of memra and shekhinah were accepted by the consensus modern scholarship as a “buffer term to preserve the transcendence of God; it has no reality of its own” (Thomas H. Tobin, “Logos,” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4 (1992): 352–53). 267 In Tg. Isa. 6:1–8 and of Tg. Neof. to Gen 1:16–17, the shekhinah appears to be exchangeable with the memra. Bruce D. Chilton, The Isaiah Targum (Wilmington, Delaware, 1987), 14–15; McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 54. Moore understands it as a mere buffer-word for preserving the divine transcendence, so it does not manifest itself as a hypostasis. Moore, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology,” 56; Pines, Guide, I. 27–28; Deutsch, Guardians of the Gate, 5–7; Kadushin, The Rabbinic Mind, 325–36. 268 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 147–49.

100

Chapter 1

Neof. to Ex 12:19, the motifs of the ‘glory’ of shekhinah, and the light which is ‘ʾor’ )‫ )אור‬in Hebrew appear together with the memra, which reflect a divine-like and hypostatic image in the creation context.269 Most importantly, the memra in the targums, which are related to the concepts and images of voice, light, and shekhinah, is also associated with the Divine Name in the letter of the Torah. In Tg. Neof. to Gen 15:6, Num 6:27, and Dt 1:32, “You did not believe in the Name of memra of the Lord your God,” the Tetragrammaton (YHWH) appears in an identical concept and meaning with the notion of memra, implying their divine-like and hypostatic images of the letters of Torah.270 Pamela Vermès also emphasizes a profound nexus between the memra and ʾHYH (ʾehyeh) which is an original expression of the eternal existence and the Name of God in the past, present, and future, who revealed to Moses in the bush in Tg. Neof. to Ex 3:12–14.271 Against this backdrop of the concepts and images of memra, scholars tried to reconstruct a philological, literary, and theological relationship between the memra of the targums and the Johannine Logos, including related NT texts, by restructuring the relationship between multifaceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity.272 Scholars, such as Macho and McNamara, assert the relationship between the memra and the Johannine Logos on the basis of the dating of the origins of the targums and the Johannine Prologue presumed approximately as a contemporary period around the

269 McNamara and M. Maher, Targum Neofiti 1 and Peusdo-Jonathan: Exodus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987), 51–52; idem, Targum and New Testament, 439–43; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 164–65. 270 McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 19; idem, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis, 95; McNamara and E. G Clarke (trans.), Targum Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987), 51; McNamara and M. Maher, Targum Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Leviticus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987), 197–98. 271 Pamela Vermès, “Buber’s Understanding of the Divine Name related to Bible, Targum and Midrash,” JJS 24 (1973): 147–66; Hayward, “The Memra of YHWH,” 412–18; idem, Divine Name, xii. 272 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 6–7, 89–91. McNamara tries to reconstruct the relationships between the Aramaic of the Palestinian Targums and the Aramaic substratum for the Gospels, such as the Q source for the Synoptics. McNamara and Kaufman see that a significant part of the Palestinian Targums to the Pentateuch already existed before at latest the second century CE. Kaufman, “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums,” 118–41. However, I think that instead of focusing on proving the exact philological and historical origin and dating of the targums, it is necessary to carefully examine the literary, theological interrelationships, and phenomenological associations between various hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

101

late first or early second centuries CE, as noted earlier.273 The discovery of the Qumran Aramaic, which was the language in the age of Jesus, supports the study of the features of the Aramaic in the targums that already existed around late Second Temple period (between approximately the first century BCE to the first century CE) and later the dating of the final editions of the New Testament.274 As Flesher notes, the “Proto-Onqelos in Palestine and its dialect Jewish Literary Aramaic” which is now called the Palestinian Targum, was used by the priestly class during the Second Temple period, and its main dialect was later developed into the Late Jewish Literary Aramaic.275 In this vein, scholars, such as Dunn and Robinson, who examined the Second-Temple and rabbinic texts, highlight the critical impacts of the Jewish social, political, and religious contexts on the formation of the idea of the Johannine Logos.276 In this context, Macho and McNamara emphasize that the special usages of memra in Tg. Neof. to Gen 1–2 and Ex 12 are not just a simple literary expression, but have a theological implication based on biblical hermeneutic strategies (parables and symbols).277 In this context, they began to investigate the possibility of 273 Despite the chronological diversity and ambiguousness of the times of the final editing of the targums, the dating of most rabbinic sources also appears to be later than the date of the final compositional editing of the Johannine Prologue. See Ashton, Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 151–59. They estimate that the final compilation of most extant targums is older than the Gospel of John (approximately mid-second to early third century), but that the Aramaic form of their proto-targum existed already before the middle of the first century at the latest. 274 McNamara, Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 523–31, idem, Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2010), 93–95, 154; J. A. Fitzmyer, The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I, Biblica et Orientalia 18 (1966; repr., Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1971), 17–34. 275 Flesher, “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in Their Social and Linguistic Context,” in The Ancient Synagogue from its Origins until 200 C.E., ed. Birgir Olsson and Magnus Zetterholm, 501–2. 276 J. D. G. Dunn, Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1996), 214–50; John A. T. Robinson, “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John,” 120–29; Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 12, 13–29; Brown, The Gospel According to John I–XII, lxxx–lxxxiii. 277 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 161–66. McNamara points out that the memra appears in Tg. Neof. to Gen 1:1–2 and Ex 12:42 and it shows the conceptual change and development of the memra. McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987), 52–56. Macho attempts a study for comparative analysis between the targums and New Testament on the basis of Codex Neofiti 1 (the discovery of bibliography: 1504, Rome) found as an almost complete text of the Palestinian Targum (identified in 1956), which is dated around the beginning of the first century CE. Macho, “Unacopia de todo el Targum jerosolimitano en la Vaticana,” Estudios Biblicos 16 (1956):

102

Chapter 1

their interrelations by highlighting that the memra appears to be associated not only with the Angel of God but also with various hypostatic notions, such as voice, light, and shekhinah. Specifically, they also examined the influences and implications of the concept of the memra (or the Word of the Lord) as an acceptable Jewish exegetical source for the concept of the Johannine Logos, as well as for other early Christian sources.278 Keener, by investigating the concepts and images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, tried to show the nexus between the memra and the Johannine Logos.279 In this context, McNamara, Macho, and Bruce D. Chilton all investigate and prove the conceptual and theological relationships of memra in the targums to the Johannine Logos.280 In addition, some scholars, such as Mchugh and Gary A. Anderson, note that the images of memra also appear implicitly in the images of Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos. McHugh states that the Evangelist identified the memra (i.e., Torah or Word of God) with the Greek Logos in a manner closer to Philo’s Logos, by analyzing both the Hellenistic and rabbinic influences in the Johannine Prologue.281 The memra’s affinity to Philo’s Jewish conception of the Logos strengthens the possibility of interactions of the memra, in the targums and other rabbinic sources, with the Johannine Logos, as well as other hypostatic notions of Torah, manifest around the first and second centuries CE. Anderson also asserts that the profound relationships (e.g., “preexistence and superintendence”) between the Johannine Logos and memra appear in

446–47; idem, “El Logos,” 381–96; idem, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum,” 222–45. 278 McNamara, “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Exod 1242)” in Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 439–43; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 163; Hans Bietenhard, “Logos Theologie im Rabbinat,” ANRW 2 (Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1979): 580–617. 279 Keener, The Gospel of John: A Commentary, 1: 349–50. 280 Martin J. McNamara, Targum and Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972), 102–3; idem, “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242),” 115–17; Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994), 271–304; Alejandro D. Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana: edición príncipe, introducción general y versión castellana, vol. 4 (Spain: Editorial CSIC-CSIC Press, 1974); idem, “El Logos,” 381–96. These scholars all argued for the close connection between the memra in the Palestinian Targums and the Johannine Logos. There is a possibility, therefore, of the existence of a primitive conception of memra as a personified divine Logos, even before the incarnation of Jesus. See also Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” 279. 281 McHugh, John 1–4, 6. This implies that the Evangelist presented Jesus as the Savior “to all ‘the Greeks’ (cf. Jn 12:21) who sincerely sought the truth about God amid the perplexing world of Hellenistic religions.”

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

103

various interpretations of the term bereshit “in the beginning” in the creation context against the backdrop of the intertwined (i.e., rabbinic, philosophical, and Jewish mystical) concepts of Torah in Gen. Rab. i, 1.282 This shows that the memra in these passages is also used to refer to the pre-existent Torah, which is an instrument of creation, which was examined earlier. It is notable that the explicit evidence of these features of memra against the backdrop of the Logos can be gleaned from early Christian sources, such as Justin Martyr’s works.283 In the Dialogue with Trypho (written in the middle of second century CE), we find: An everlasting and final Law [Torah was] Christ himself, and a trustworthy covenant has been given to us, after which there shall be no law, or commandment, or precept. Then everyone can clearly see from these deeds and the accompanying powerful miracles that he is indeed the New Law, the new covenant, and the expectation of those who, from every nation, have awaited the blessings of God. (chapter 11: 2, 4)284 … because he sometimes appears in visions that cannot be contained; is called a Man and a Human being, because he appears arrayed in such forms as please the Father; and they call him Word [or Logos], because he reveals to men the discourses of the Father. (chapter 128:1)285 Justin’s several arguments in the Dialogue with Trypho allude to the fact that there were a certain number of people who were aware of a personified divine Logos (i.e., the Word of God), which is arguably identified with the memra, even before the incarnation of Jesus.286 This passage appears to be profoundly related to the story, as translated in Palestinian Targums to Gen 15:1–6 of Abraham who believed in the memra of God.287 The theophany at mamre describes the appearance of memra to Abraham in Gen 15:1–6, “And it was after these things that the Word of God appeared to Abraham (v. 1). Abraham 282 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 160–61; Gary A. Anderson, “The Interpretation of Gen 1:1 in the Targums,” CBQ 52 (1990), 28. 283 Saint Justin Martyr, and Michael Slusser, Dialogue with Trypho: Selections from the Fathers of the Church, vol. 3 (WA: Catholic University of America Press, 2003), 56:1–22 (pp. 83–88); 61:1 (p. 94). In addition, there is a scholarly debate about whether Justin’s works are dependent on the Gospel of John. Nonetheless, this shows that the memra is a possible Jewish source for the Logos, which might have been regarded as a special case of contemporaneous Jewish hypostatic notions even within early Christian writings. Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 275–78. 284 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 11:2, 4, pp. 20–21. 285 Ibid., 128:1, p. 193. 286 Ibid., 61:1–5 (pp. 93–96). See also Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” 279. 287 Boyarin, Border Lines, 275–76.

104

Chapter 1

believed in God and he reckoned it for him as righteousness” (v. 6).288 As Justin Martyr again explains the images of Jesus in Jn 8:56–59 which revealed himself as the Word of God (i.e., the Logos) to Abraham, who presumably rejoiced, and gladly received him, before the incarnation of Jesus, which alludes to the personification and hypostatization of the memra.289 This shows that Justin Martyr explicitly depicts Jesus as a personified and hypostatized form of the Law (Torah) and the Logos (Word) and thereby proves an implicit relationship of the targumic memra to the Johannine Logos. Furthermore, as it is articulated in Sir 24 and rabbinic midrash, the concept of Torah (or the Word of God), related to the concept of memra, appears in the images of personified Wisdom as a pre-existent agent or instrument of God, personified and hypostatized in the creation context.290 Specifically, José Costa analyzes the relationship between dibbur (‫)דיבור‬, which literally means ‘speech’ (and can be semantically connected with Word and Logos, as well as the memra), and personified Wisdom in ancient rabbinic literature.291 Based on the identification of Wisdom with Torah in the Wisdom literature, such as in Sir 24, he examines the changing and developing relationship between the concepts of Wisdom and Torah in early and late rabbinic literature against the backdrop of the work of Boccaccini and Boyarin.292 As he shows, there appears to be 288 Ronning, The Jewish Targums, 46–69. Abraham’s belief in the memra of God is described in the Palestinian Targums to Gen 15:6. 289 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 60:1–4 (pp. 92–93). In this passage of Jn 8:57–58, Jews say, “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” (v. 57). Jesus answers them, “Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am” (v. 58). This passage implies that Abraham would be one of those “who received him,” and became “one of the children of God.” 290 Frank, The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach, 33; Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10, 122–23; Brant, John, 26. 291 José Costa, “Y a-t-il un effacement de la sagesse et du logos dans la littérature rabbinique ancienne?” in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, ed. Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez (Leuven: Peeters, 2021), 319–46; Hans Bietenhard, and Wolfgang Haase, “Logos-Theologie im Rabbinat. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Worte Gottes im rabbinischen Schrifttum,” Religion ( Judentum: Allgemeines; palästinisches Judentum [Forts.]) (1979): 580–618; Schäfer, “Wisdom Finds Home: Torah as Wisdom,” in Light in a Spotless Mirror: Reflections on Wisdom Traditions in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth and Michael A. Daise (Harrisburg, PA: Trinity Press International, 2003), 26–44. In a manner similar to the memra, the dibbur generally does not appear as an archangel, the preexistent son of God or even second God in the Tannaitic literature. The hypostatic implication of dibbur, which was relatively suppressed in the Tannaitic literature, appears to be restored in relation to the concept and images of Torah and personified Wisdom in late midrashim, such as Gen. Rab. 292 Gabriele Boccaccini, “Hellenistic Judaism: Myth or Reality?” Jewish Literatures and Cultures. Context and Intertext, ed. Anita Norich and Yaron Eliav (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2008), 55–76; idem, The Pre-existence of the Torah: A Commonplace in

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

105

a dynamic change of the attenuation over time of the separation between the concepts of Torah and personified Wisdom. For instance, the concept of Wisdom in late midrashim, such as Gen. Rab. i, 1, becomes identical to the rabbinic Torah, unlike the case as in the earlier Tannaitic literature. In this vein, Marion J. Edwards argues that the memra, given the profound relationship of the Word of God (or Torah) to personified Wisdom, is implicitly connected to the concepts and images of various hypostatic notions, such as the Johannine Logos.293 As Ringgren also notes, the literary, intertextual, and theological interactions between Torah and personified Wisdom corroborate the personification and hypostatization of the memra in the targumic literature, as well as of various hypostatic notions in the Second Temple and Wisdom literature, and in rabbinic literature.294 In all, this investigation shows that the concepts of Torah and Wisdom, which were earlier intertwined in the Wisdom literature, were later interacted with the succeeding concepts and images of various hypostatic notions, such as memra, the Johannine Logos and shekhinah in rabbinic literature, including early and late midrashim, as well as early Christian sources throughout the history of ancient Jewish, rabbinic, and Christian thought. It shows that the memra in the targums appears phenomenologically as a term, which angelomorphizes and hypostatizes the concept of the biblical and theological notions, such as voice, light, shekhinah, and personified Wisdom, and thereby creates an angelic and hypostatic image of Torah.295 It also unveils not only that the memra is semantically interchangeable with the Word and Torah but also that it is engendered out of the concatenation of the other hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom.296 It further affirms that the memra in the targums phenomenologically appears to be an allegorical or symbolic term, which angelomorphizes and hypostatizes the Law (ὁ νόμος) in a manner similar to Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom. It substantiates that the concept of memra in the targumic literature reflects Hellenistic influences on the conceptual changes of Torah into personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos. Specifically, it shows that the images of memra convey not only a Logos-centered hypostatic notion, such as Philo’s Logos and the Second Temple Judaism, or a Later Rabbinic Development? Henoch 17.3 (1995): 329–50; Boyarin, Border Lines, 87–147. 293 Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” 262. 294 Ringgren, Word and Wisdom, 123, 163–64. Personified Wisdom in the targums substantiates the existence and features of personified Wisdom in Gen 1:1, Prov 8–9, and Sir 24:3, and Wis 9:1–2, which were examined earlier. 295 Beattie, and McNamara, The Aramaic Bible, 12, 14, 122. 296 I will discuss in detail more evidence of their intertextual and theological nexuses and their distinctive usages later in this study.

106

Chapter 1

Johannine Logos, but also a Wisdom-centered hypostatic notion, such as personified Wisdom and shekhinah. This thereby corroborates the existence of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, which were part of a broader Logos-centered tradition and Wisdom-centered tradition, respectively, in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. In this context, I will further examine in detail the shekhinah as the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notion in comparison to other hypostatic notions, which were previously examined, in order to concretize the existence of the two traditions – Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered  – and the explicit evidence of the emergence and development of the two different kinds of the hypostatic notions of Torah throughout the history of Jewish thought. 2.6 Shekhinah The shekhinah (‫ )שכינה‬as a noun, which literally means “dwelling or presence of God,” and is derived from the Hebrew root shakhan (‫(שכן‬, “to dwell, reside, and abide,” does not appear properly in the Hebrew Bible. The shekhinah, which is one of the most common designations for God, is explicitly connected to the ‘dwelling’ meaning and image of “the glory of God.” As we can see in the Hebrew Bible, there are conceptions and images related to the shekhinah: the glory of God which ‘dwells’ in the mountain (Ps 68:16–18; Jl 3:17); the glory of God, which ‘filled’ the tabernacle (Ex 40:34); the glory of God which ‘dwells’ in the Temple (2 Chr 7:1–16). As R. D. Middleton and Anderson noted, the conception of the shekhinah appears equivalent in meanings to “glory,” i.e., kavod (‫ )כבוד‬of God (e.g., 1 Sam 4:22; Ex 33:18) and yeqara in the targumic literature.297 In addition to the usages and images of kavod and yeqara, the term shekhinah, which is written as shekhinta (‫ )שכינתא‬in the targums, appears similar to those of the memra as used in the creation context.298 In addition, there are many symbolic depictions in the Hebrew Bible, which are profoundly related to these symbolic images of shekhinah, such as the Divine Presence as a cloud (Ex 24:16–18; Ex 33:9; 1 Kgs 8:10–13), as a pillar of smoke and fire (Ex 13:21–22), and as fire and a burning bush (Ex 3:2; Zech 2:5).299 The term shekhinah, in rabbinic and midrashic literature (e.g., m. Pirkei ʾAvot 3:2; b. Ber. 6a; b. Menaḥ. 43b;

297 Middleton, “Logos and Shekinah,” 120–30. In targums to Dt 31:3–8, the shekhinah, which plays equally with the term Glory and the Presence, substitutes for God himself. See also Pesiq. Rab. xxxi, 7 in the translation in Pesikta Rabbati, trans. William G. Braude (London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968), 2:609. 298 Anderson, “The Interpretation of Gen 1:1 in the Targums,” 28; Middleton, 125–30. 299 Furthermore, the shekhinah in the Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Beshallaḥ 6:17–18; 14: 100–109) indicates God Himself as a figure of speech.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

107

b. Meg. 29a), and targumic literature (e.g., Tg. Onq. to Ex 34:6; Dt 32:40; Num 23:21), is generally used as a circumlocution when the texts represent the anthropomorphic manifestation of the Lord and His closeness to human beings and especially the Divine Presence among Jewish people.300 Generally, the epithet shekhinah, in rabbinic and midrashic literature, expresses the presence and proximity of God (m. Pirkei ʾAvot 3:2, 6; m. Sanh. 6:5; Baraita, b. Šabb. 12b; b. Ned. 40a; Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Amalek 3:163–64) even though there are few allusions to it as an angelic or a hypostatic being, which has a separate existence alongside God.301 The shekhinah in the targumic literature is, in a manner similar to the memra, generally known as a circumlocution, which avoids an anthropomorphic and personal conception of God.302 The shekhinah symbolically indicates not only the closeness of the Lord to His people but also the Divine Presence among His people as a replacement of the ‘indwelling’ of God in the Temple after its destruction. The ‘indwelling’ concept of shekhinah appears in relation to the senses of a unique and selected place, such as the Tabernacle (‫ ִמ ְש ָכן‬, mishkan), the Sanctuary, and the Chosen House in rabbinic and midrashic literature.303 In this sense, the images of shekhinah, which are symbolically connected to the Tabernacle during the wandering of the Israelites in the wilderness and in the Exile, are also associated with a dwelling place for the Deity in the Temple of Jerusalem, and later in the Diaspora.304 Generally in the sayings of R. Nathan in the Halakhic midrashim, shekhinah implicitly refers to God Himself as “the Holy One, blessed be He.”305 In various 300 See Urbach, The Sages, 42–45; Joshua Abelson, The Immanence of God in Rabbinic Literature (London: MacMillan, 1912), 83. 301 The image of shekhinah, along with the concept of Torah, appears as a separate being, which is given to the people of Israel. See Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Amalek 3:163–76. 302 Middleton, “Logos and Shekinah,” 120. I will discuss later in this study the theological implications of shekhinah in relation to various hypostatic notions of Torah. 303 In Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Pisḥa 6:70–80, the images of shekhinah appear both as an angelic agent of God and as the divine presence. See m. Maʿaser Sheni 5:2; t. Sanh. 4:5; t. Kelim, B. Qam. 1:10–12; Sifre to Deuteronomy, chs. 62, 70, 352 (e.g., Dt 14:23, 25). The “indwelling” sense of shekhinah can be gleaned from the expressions like “the house of shekhinah (the God’s presence)” in the midrashim, such as Sifre to Zutta to Numbers, Naso V. 2. i, 4:D, “for the Land of Canaan is not suitable for the house of God’s presence.” Neusner, and Saul Horovitz, trans., Sifré Zutta to Numbers (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009), 4. As Urbach (42) notes, the use of shekhinah is “prevalent in the Tosefta, and especially in the Halakhic Midrashim.” 304 Alon, The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, 48. Alon explains, the concept of the Temple, which is “‘the Tabernacle of the Land,’ the dwelling-place of the shekhinah of the God of Israel,” further implies that the synagogue became an alternative place for shekhinah, and a place to worship God instead of the Jerusalem Temple. 305 Urbach, The Sages, 44.

108

Chapter 1

mentions of shekhinah in the sayings of the Amoraim, such as “They enjoy the splendor of the shekhinah )‫ ”) ִמּזִ יו ַה ְּׁש ִכינָ ה‬in b. Ber. 17a and “The Holy One, blessed be He, sates them with the splendor of the shekhinah” in b. B. Bat. 10a, we can infer that the concepts of the Divine Presence and Divine Omnipresence are symbolically described in relation to the images of shekhinah.306 Furthermore, the ‘light’ (‫ (אור‬of God, in a manner similar to the splendor of the shekhinah, appears to be exchangeable for the shekhinah. Interestingly, the Sages connect the concept and image of the ‘light’ in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Prov 16:15) to “the light of the Holy One, blessed be He” (Num. Rab. xv, 6 and Lev. Rab. xxxi, 8).307 It is notable that the concept of the shekhinah, related to an invisible and hidden image of the ‘light’ of God, explicitly appears in relation to a divine-like image of personified Wisdom in a female form in the Wisdom literature, such as Wisdom of Solomon (e.g., Philo, Opif. xlvi, 135; Wis 7:26).308 In addition, it is crucial to note that the images of shekhinah in a feminine character appear to be equated with God (Ex 25:8) as a masculine character, on the basis of the gendered schemes based on the mythic and anthropomorphic images, which I will discuss later in this study.309 In all, this examination shows that the shekhinah 306 See Efraim E. Urbach, The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987), 45–46. The cases of the splendor of the shekhinah frequently appear in early midrashim, such as Sifre Naso VI. 24–25, in Neusner, Sifré Zutta to Numbers, 46–49. 307 Urbach, The Sages, 46. 308 Wis 7:26: “For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness” (KJV). It is also notable that in Philonic thought, there are the gendered dynamics between Wisdom as a female form and Logos as a male form. 309 The dynamic interaction of gendered images of the shekhinah, linked to the concept of Torah, and God can also be gleaned from some early midrashic material, such as Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Baḥodesh 4 (to Ex 19:18–20:1). In particular, the shekhinah conveys not only a masculine aspect of God as His embodiment in the world but also a feminine aspect of God, which bridges the heavenly and the earthly realms. Against this backdrop, the feminine image of the Torah, expressed as “My daughter,” is intertwined with both a feminine image of shekhinah, and a masculine image of shekhinah through the literary and symbolic strategies, while maintaining their hypostatic qualities. The dualistic features and gendered motifs of various hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah, appear as implicit evidence in the rabbinic sources, becomes explicit in the Bahir, which may also contain a feature of gnostic imagery. The sexual symbolism in the Bahir, such as the coupling of masculine and feminine potencies, appears to function between God and the shekhinah, as well as between the divine essence and attributes. Specifically, it implies a dualistic nature of God, which conveys a masculine and feminine character, and thereby the creation of man and woman in accordance with His nature in Gen 1:26–27. See Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 124–25. The gendered images of shekhinah appear in the combination and development process of various hypostatic notions, such as Metatron, merkavah, and the sefirot in late antique Jewish mystical and kabbalistic literature, which

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

109

generally appears, in rabbinic and targumic literature, to be identical with God, while implying the divine presence as a literary (poetic and symbolic) personification, rather than a created angelic being and hypostatic notion, which is separate from God. It shows that the conception of shekhinah involves a poetic, mythic, and anthropomorphic understanding, based on the exegetic and hermeneutic strategies, which formulate a divine-like image of shekhinah. However, differing from the literary implication of the shekhinah, some rabbinic and targumic texts, and in Tannaitic midrashim, such as the Mekhilta, allude to the concept an angelic mediator in the images of the shekhinah even though there is controversy over this issue.310 As Serge Ruzer notes, the shekhinah in rabbinic literature appears as a new mediating apparatus and “indwelling” locus for His people after the destruction of the Temple.311 The shekhinah in the targums (e.g., Tg. Neof. and Tg. Ps.-J to Dt 31:3–8) is a being separate from God, which appears to be associated with the memra or “the angel of the Lord.” It is notable that the usages of shekhinah basically appear to be associated with the concepts of angels as mediators, such as “the angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel” in the Hebrew Bible itself (e.g., Ex 14:19).312 Against this backdrop, in early midrash, such as the Mekhilta, and in late midrash such as Bereshit Rabbati, the expressions of ‘His shekhinah’ indicates its being I will examine later in this study. Through the literary (mythic and anthropomorphic) and hermeneutic strategies, the angelic and divine-like images of various hypostatic notions, related to the concept of the Torah, are intertwined with their dynamic gendered images, which reflect the divine natures of God. In addition, the images of shekhinah, related to the concept of Torah, also already combine feminine and masculine images even in late midrashim. 310 As can be seen in Ex 14:19, “And the angel of God, who went before the camp of Israel,” there is an implicit allusion to the image of angels, which expresses the presence of God and appears close to the image of shekhinah. Urbach, 63–67, notes that the shekhinah in the talmudic, targumic literature generally appears as a literary (i.e., anthropomorphic) expression through a mythic and mythological image of the shekhinah. However, in a rare exception, the shekhinah appears as a separate created or angelic being in Midrash Proverbs 22:29 (49a), “the shekhinah stood before the Holy One, blessed be He, and said unto Him: Sovereign of the universe! Seest Thou a man diligent?  – they wish to count him (King Solomon) with ‘mean men.’” This is the English translation of Urbach in The Sages, 63. 311 Serge Ruzer, “From Man as Locus of God’s Indwelling to Death as Temple’s Destruction: Notes on the History of a Motif,” Revue Biblique 119 no. 3 (2012): 393–97. As Ruzer notes, in m. Sotah 9:15, t. Sotah 13:3, and b. Sotah 48b, we can also see that the shekhinah appears, as a result of prophecy, instead of a heavenly echo or the Holy Spirit. 312 Urbach, The Sages, 135–36; Isaac L. Seeligmann, The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems (Leiden: Brill, 1948), 62; Άγγελος appears as a human messenger like malakh in the Hebrew Bible. In addition, we can see a special connotation of mediums in Gen. Rab. x, 7.

110

Chapter 1

separate from God, which implies a conceptual change of the shekhinah.313 Interestingly, in Shemot Rabbah 51:3, the ‘indwelling’ (Ex 25:8) image of “My shekhinah” appears to be associated with the concept and image of the Torah in so far as both shekhinah and Torah were given to Israel.314 Interestingly, the motif and image of “dwelling” of the shekhinah as a mediator, which is exceptional in rabbinic literature, also can be gleaned from the images of personified Wisdom in Wisdom literature, such as Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon. For instance, the “indwelling” image of shekhinah as a mediator appears in a profound relationship with an anthropomorphic and mythic image of personified Wisdom as a heavenly agent in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.315 In addition, the ‘light’ image of the shekhinah is connected to an intermediary image of personified Wisdom, which involves the doctrine of pneuma as the breath or spirit of the Creator (e.g., Wis 1:1–8; 6:1–8).316 This implies that the concept and images of the shekhinah also interacted and were intertwined with the angelic images of personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature, which was mainly influenced by Hellenistic thought. Nonetheless, as Efraim E. Urbach notes, it shows, to some extent, the difference understanding of the concepts 313 T. Hor. 2:7; Mek. d’R. Simeon b. Yohai, Beshallaḥ 126; Ha-Darshan Moses, and Chanoch Albeck, Midrash Bereshit Rabati, Nosad ʿal Sifro Shel R. Mosheh Ha-Darshan (Jerusalem, n.s., 1966), 26–28. The concept of shekhinah as a mediator in Bereshit Rabbati ‫)דף י( ה‬ appears to have been influenced by Saadia Gaon’s philosophical exegesis. Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, trans. Samuel Rosenblatt (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976), Treatise II. x, 99 (p. 121). 314 Sefer Midrash Rabah: ʿal Ḥamishah Ḥumshe Torah Ve-ʿal Ḥamesh Megilot, ed. Issachar Berman ben Naphtali, ha-Kohen, Isaac Aizik, of Zidiṭshov, Yehudah Tsevi, and Menaḥem Mendl ben Asher Yeshaʿy (Monsi, NY: Hotsa‌ʾat Bi-mesilah naʿaleh 779, 2019), ‫סדר פקודי‬, 51:3. In particular, the shekhinah conveys both the masculine image of the Divine Presence and God Himself, and the feminine image of shekhinah as an indwelling place. In late midrash, such as a seventh-century midrash, Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 7:11 (4:12; 5:2; 5:10; 6:2) we can see a romantic relationship, formulated by means of the Torah given as a gift, between the masculine image of God and female image of Israel. These gendered and hypostatized images of shekhinah, related to the concept of Torah, also appear to be positioned between God and Israel in kabbalistic and Zoharic literature (e.g., Sefer ha-Zohar I. 21 b). Specifically, we can see an affinity between shekhinah and Torah in their gendered images as both a feminine and masculine form. In Shir ha-Shirim Rabbah 8:11, CXII: iii: we read: “Wherever God made His Torah to abide, there He made His Shekhinah to abide.” See the translation in Neusner, Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation, 2 vols. (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 2:236–39. 315 Brant, John, 26. The motifs and images of personified Wisdom, which is “dwelling” at the Temple of Jerusalem, explicitly appears in the Wisdom literature, such as Sirach (e.g., Sir 24:8–11). 316 Max Pohlenz, Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung, vol. 1 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984), 368.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

111

and images of the shekhinah between the thought of the talmudic and midrashic sages and the philosophical and Jewish Hellenistic thought.317 Against the backdrop of the angelic and divine-like images of memra and shekhinah, I will examine the profound interactions between the images of various hypostatic notions including Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom. Through this examination, I will further discuss in detail their images linked to the concept of Torah. Against this background, scholars such as Macho, McNamara, and P. Borgen, based on the possibility of the dating of the proto-targums around the 1–2 centuries CE and the theological implications of the memra and shekhinah, tried to prove its correlations with the Johannine Logos and other hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah.318 Specifically, as Macho emphasizes, beyond a mere literary euphemism or buffer-word, a critical theological feature of the memra and shekhinah in these texts, is profoundly related to the Divine Name as a hypostatic entity, which is simultaneously the distinctive from and homogenous with God.319 On the basis of this logic, scholars, such as Charles A. Gieschen and Robert Hayward, first regard the Divine Name as term interchangeable with the memra in the targumic material, such as Tg. Neof. to Gen 15:6, Num 6:27, and Dt 1:32, passages that were noted earlier.320 In this point, Hayward acknowledges that the memra, 317 Urbach, 65. 318 Macho, “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum,” 222–45; B. F. Westcott, Introduction to the Study of the Gospels with Historical and Explanatory Notes (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1978), 147–50; P. Borgen, “Observations on the Targumic Character of the Prologue of John,” NTS 16 (1969/1970): 288–95; McNamara, Targum and New Testament, 101–2. For several scholars, such as McNamara, the targumists tried to reflect their literary, biblical, and theological perspectives through various hypostatic notions, which existed around the first century CE, such as the memra. 319 Macho, “El Logos,” 389–90. 320 Charles A. Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology: Antecedents and Early Evidence (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1998), 113; Hayward, Divine Name, 5–10. Fossum traces the subsequent development of the various hypostatic notions, related to the Tetragrammaton, while analyzing the various interpretations on ancient aggadic interpretation of Gen 1:26–27. Fossum, “Gen 1:26 and 2:7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,” 202–39. Some passages in the Hebrew Bible employ the Divine Name in an instrumental sense (Ps 54:3, 89:17, 44:6, 118:10 f). It is notable that the Angel of the Lord is only a temporary manifestation of God, whereas after the exodus he appears as God. In other passages, the Divine Name appears as a personified agent or a hypostatic mediator independent from God himself (Ps 148:13; 54:6 f; Prov 18:10; Mal 1:11; Jl 2:26). Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism, 84–86. As Fossum analyzed, the Word of God (e.g., Wis 18:15 f) appears in a hypostatic sense in the descriptions of the Angel of the Lord (1 Chr 21:16, Ex 23:20 f), which reflects the divine nature of YHWH in the targums. Furthermore, in Memar Marqah I. 1–4, which is a Samaritan homiletic tractate, the Divine Name appears not only a hypostasis

112

Chapter 1

which is linked to the Tetragrammaton, has a critical theological implication for the nature of the divine presence and for covenant theology, although for him it has no implication for the question of its personification.321 Chilton also emphasizes an explicit hypostatic conception in the images of memra and shekhinah, related to the Tetragrammaton as the divine essence.322 This shows that the usages of memra and shekhinah used in the relation with the Divine Name explicitly convey a hypostatic conception, which appears as a nearly identified being with God, and thereby reinforce their divine-like images. Based on these features, the images of the memra and shekhinah, as hypostatic entities, are deeply associated with the concept of the Tetragrammaton in the letters of Torah. This substantiates the relationships between their images and God, and thereby creates a divine-like image of Torah based on their theological and phenomenological relationships. Specifically, as Charles F. Burney points out, the divine-like conception of shekhinah and memra, which is related to the Divine Name, has a profound nexus with the Johannine Logos.323 First, we can infer that the image of the shekhinah appears to be related to the “dwelling” image of the Johannine Logos, Jesus in the world, as described in Jn 1:14. As noted earlier, a homiletic and liturgical ode of midrashic nature on the ‘four nights’ in Tg. Neof. to Ex 12:19 in, explicitly alludes to the relationship of the memra and shekhinah (related to light) to the Johannine Logos:

but also as a cosmological force. See Marqah, and J. Macdonald, Memar Marqah (= The Teaching of Marqah), Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (Berlin: A. Töpelmann. 1963), 1–15. 321 Hayward, Divine Name, 57–113; idem, “The Memra of YHWH,” 417–18; A. Chester, Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986). 322 Chilton, “Recent and Prospective Discussion of Memra,” in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding, ed. J. Neusner (BJS 173; Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989), 119–37. Chilton suggests the possibility that the use of the Tetragrammaton was added through the process of the editing of the targums (ca. 66–132 CE). Chilton, The Glory of Israel, 57–63; Hayward, Divine Name, 5–7. The hypostatic notions, such as memra and shekhinah, associated with the Tetragrammaton, appearing throughout the targums reemerge in the images of various hypostatic mediators, such as Metatron, merkavah, and sefirot in late ancient and medieval Jewish mystic texts. Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch: Or, The Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), xvii; xlv; P. Schäfer et al., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (‫)סינופסיס לספרות ההיכלות‬ (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), §§ 235–238; M. Swartz, “Ancient Jewish Mysticism,” in Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah: New Insights and Scholarship, Jewish Studies in the 21st Century, ed. F. E. Greenspahn (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 33–34. 323 Charles F. Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922), 39; See also Middleton, 130–32.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

113

Four nights are written in the Book of Memories: The first night: when the Lord was revealed above the world to create it. The world was unformed, and void and darkness was spread over the surface of the deep; and through his memra there was light and illumination, and he called it the first night.324 It is notable that the type of prose, which we find in the targumic midrash, appears similar to a kind of rhetorical prose of the Johannine Prologue. In the first night, the memra of the Lord is explicitly identified with the hypostatized ‘light’, which reflects an image of shekhinah. The association between the memra and shekhinah, related to the light, shows the motifs and images of the ‘glory’ of shekhinah, which appears as a divine-like and hypostatic entity in the creation context.325 As McNamara and Macho also note, this text bears a striking terminological resemblance to the Johannine Prologue as are seen in its use of words, such as memra (i.e., Word) and light, which are related to the Johannine Logos.326 The motifs of ‘light’ (Jn 1:5, 7–9) and its illuminating ‘glory’ or shekhinah (Jn 1:5, 9, 14) is associated with a divine-like and hypostatic image of the memra (i.e., the Word of God) and shekhinah (related to light) in the targums, and eventually appear in the images of the Johannine Logos.327 Specifically, as Gieschen analyzes, the images of memra, associated with the Divine Name, the Tetragrammaton, appears to be related to the divine concept and images of ‘his name’ (τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ) associated with the Johannine Logos 324 Michael L. Klein, ed. and trans., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (AnBib; Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1980), 2:47; McNamara, “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 12:42),” The Expository Times 79.4 (1968): 115–17. As McNamara analyzes, the midrash of the “four nights” shows a close connection between the Jewish religious tradition, manifest in the targums, and the early Christian religious tradition, as it is found in the Gospels, in terms of the theological subjects, such as messianism. 325 McNamara and M. Maher, Targum Neofiti 1 and Peusdo-Jonathan: Exodus (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987), 51–52; idem, Targum and New Testament, 439–43; idem, Targum and Testament Revisited, 164–65. McNamara sees the poetic and homiletic text as having the similar terminologies and meanings in the Johannine Prologue. The characteristic that the memra is hypostatized and identified with ‘light’ can be seen in a liturgical text of the Passover, which appears in other Fragment Targums and Geniza Tosefta, as well as in m. Pesaḥ. 10:5. Herbert Danby, The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes (Oxford University Press; London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1933), 151. 326 McNamara, Targum and Testament, 102–3. McNamara notes that the targumic text conveys an original midrashic exegesis rather than a later “Christianizing” interpolation. He also elaborates on its theological nexus with personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos. 327 Macho, “El Logos,” 389.

114

Chapter 1

(Jn 1:12).328 The divine-like image of shekhinah (Jn 1:14), linked to Incarnate Logos, has a profound allusion to the motif of a “dwelling” place of God in the image of personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature against the backdrop of other hypostatic notions, such as the memra, light, and voice. It shows that the images of light, shekhinah, and even memra in the targums are linked to the mystical and divine-like images of personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos.329 This examination shows not only the closeness and identification between the Johannine Logos and God Himself (Jn 1:1–2) through the symbolic motifs and images of the memra, light, and shekhinah, but also a divine-like image of various hypostatic notions in the Wisdom literature, and rabbinic, and midrashic literature. In addition, it shows that the literary and theological dimensions of the memra and Tetragrammaton in the targums play a critical role in elucidating the relationships between the merma, shekhinah (related to light) and Philo’s Logos, as well as personified Wisdom, and thereby create their divine-like and hypostatic images linked to the concept of Torah. Through this examination, despite there being no explicit identification between shekhinah and Torah in rabbinic literature, we can infer an implicit connection between shekhinah and the concept of Torah through the roles and functions of the memra as an apparatus connecting various hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah. This investigation thereby substantiates a phenomenological characteristic, i.e., the divine-like image of memra and shekhinah is linked to the concept of Torah and thereby implicitly creates a God-like image of Torah.330 In all, the previously examined hypostatic notions (personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah), linked to the concept of Torah, provide critical insights into the 328 Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 271–80; McHugh, John 1–4, 8–9. 329 Urbach, The Sages, 40–45, 63–67. See also Philo, Opif. xlvi, 13; Wis 1:1–8; 6:1–8. 330 Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 83–84. It is notable that like Jesus, the Rabbis also played with parables and metaphors which blur the borderline between images and realities, especially regarding the relationships between God and Israel, as well as the hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah, linked to the concept to Torah. Specifically, in Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Amalek 3:163–76, the image of shekhinah appears with a similar nuance to the image of Torah which reflects the closeness to the people of Israel. See also Amalek 4:106–108. “I shall go to my land and tell everybody and convert all the people of my country, leading them to the study of the Torah and bringing them nigh under the wings of the shekhinah.” In this sense, the images of both the shekhinah and Torah similarly appear as a separate being sent to dwell on earth. In Mek. d’R. Ishmael Baḥodesh 4 (Ex 19:18–20:1), pp. 220–29, we can see the symbolic associations between fire, voice, Glory, and shekhinah, as well as the Torah, which is identified with God’s daughter. For instance, “the Torah is fire” in Baḥodesh 4:3–4.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

115

conceptual development and historical backgrounds of Torah and the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah from the Second Temple period to the later rabbinic periods. Specifically, it shows that, despite the suppression of theological implications on the Torah in the Tannaitic literature, the conceptual and theological changes of the Torah have been implicitly occurred, in keeping with the historical and ideological situation of rabbinic tradition, through profound interactions between the ancient and late antique Jewish and Christian traditions. Through this examination, we have seen the intertextual and theological relationships, which concretize explicit evidence of the emergence and development of the two types of the hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah,  – Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered  – which were dynamically developed throughout the history of Jewish thought. It particularly shows the emergence of the dual conception of the hypostatic notions of Torah, as the angelic and divine-like images, through the complicated interactions and combinations between the various hypostatic notions of Torah. In addition, these images demonstrate not only a profound affinity between the various Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, but also a close relationship between the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom and shekhinah. It also authenticates the existence of the two supposed traditions: Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered, in accordance with the images and features of the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, as well as their profound (intertextual and theological) relationships and interactions. Finally, it further implies that the hermeneutic strategies (i.e., allegory and symbolism), which formulated the concepts and images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, intertextually and theologically interacted with rabbinic rhetorics and Hellenistic influences within early Jewish and Christian sources. 3

Intertextual and Theological Nexuses between the Hypostatic Notions of Torah

Grounding the discussion in the previous examinations, I will turn now to study the intertextual and theological relationships between the various primitive forms of the hypostatic notions, as they are manifest in the creation context. This will allow me to describe their intertextual and theological relationships, and the primitive forms of the images of the hypostatic notions

116

Chapter 1

Table 11

Intertextual allusions to the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Toraha

‫ וְ ֵאת ָה ָא ֶרץ‬,‫ ֵאת ַה ָּׁש ַמיִם‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫ ָּב ָרא ֱא‬,‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫ֵר‬

Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν οὐρανὸν καὶ τὴν γῆν.

‫רעא‬ ָ ‫דמין ְב ָרא יוי יָ ת ְש ַמיָ א וְ יָת ַא‬ ִ ‫ֲב ַק‬

‫מן אוולא ברא אלקים ית שמייא וית ארעא‬ :‫מלקדמין בחכמה [בחוכמתא] ברא (ד)יי שכלל [ושכלל] ית שמיא וית ארעא‬ ‫בחכמה מן לקדמין ברא וייי ושכליל ית שמיא וית ארע‬ :‫אׁשית ַּד ְרּכֹו‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬,‫יְ הוָ ה ָקנָ נִ י‬ .‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫ נִ ַּס ְכ ִּתי ֵמרֹאׁש ִמ ַּק ְד ֵמ‬,‫עֹולם‬ ָ ‫ֶק ֶדם ִמ ְפ ָע ָליו ֵמ ָאז כג ֵמ‬ ‫ל־עת‬ ֵ ‫ יֹום יֹום;  ְמ ַׂש ֶח ֶקת ְל ָפנָ יו ְּב ָכ‬,‫ׁשּועים‬ ִ ‫ וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ַׁש ֲע‬:‫ ָאמֹון‬,‫וָ ֶא ְהיֶ ה ֶא ְצלֹו‬

ἤμην παρ᾿ αὐτῷ ἁρμόζουσα. ἐγὼ ἤμην ᾗ προσέχαιρε, καθ᾿ ἡμέραν δὲ εὐφραινόμην ἐν προσώπῳ αὐτοῦ ἐν παντὶ καιρῷ,

‫מוּתנוּ‬ ֵ ‫אָדם ְבּ ַצ ְל ֵמנוּ ִכּ ְד‬ ָ ‫ נַ ֲע ֶשׂה‬,‫ֹלהים‬ ִ ‫אמר ֱא‬ ֶ ֹ ‫וַ יּ‬

καὶ εἶπεν ὁ θεός Ποιήσωμεν ἄνθρωπον κατ᾽ εἰκόνα ἡμετέραν καὶ καθ᾽ ὁμοίωσιν,

‫ֹלהים ָּב ָרא אֹתֹו‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ֶצ ֶלם ֱא‬,‫ת־ה ָא ָדם ְּב ַצ ְלמֹו‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫וַ ְּיִב ָרא ֱא‬

καὶ ἐποίησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον, κατ’ εἰκόνα θεοῦ ἐποίησεν αὐτόν, ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ ἐποίησεν αὐτούς

;‫ נִ ְׁש ַמת ַחּיִ ים‬,‫ וַ ּיִ ַּפח ְּב ַא ָּפיו‬,‫ן־ה ֲא ָד ָמה‬ ָ ‫ ָע ָפר ִמ‬,‫ת־ה ָא ָדם‬ ָ ‫ֹלהים ֶא‬ ִ ‫יצר יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬ ֶ ִ‫וַ ּי‬ ‫ ְלנֶ ֶפׁש ַחּיָ ה‬,‫וַ יְ ִהי ָה ָא ָדם‬

καὶ ἔπλασεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν ἄνθρωπον χοῦν ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς καὶ ἐνεφύσησεν εἰς τὸ πρόσωπον αὐτοῦ πνοὴν ζωῆς, καὶ ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν. 1 Ἐν ἀρχῇ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν Θεόν, καὶ Θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2 Οὗτος ἦν ἐν ἀρχῇ πρὸς τὸν Θεό 3 πάντα δι’ αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο, καὶ χωρὶς αὐτοῦ ἐγένετο οὐδὲ ἓν ὃ γέγονεν. 14 καὶ ὁ Λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο καὶ ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν, καὶ ἐθεασάμεθα τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ, δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός, πλήρης χάριτος καὶ ἀληθείας. 18 Θεὸν οὐδεὶς ἑώρακε πώποτε· ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός, ἐκεῖνος ἐξηγήσατο.

Gen 1:1 Tg. Onq. to Gen 1:1 Tg. Ps.-J. Tg. Neof. Frg. Tg. Prov 8:22 23 Prov 8:30

Gen 1:26

Gen 1:27b

Gen 2:7c

Jn 1:1–3 14 18

a I highlighted expressions, which show the intertextual relationships within these texts. b Philo, Philo: On the Creation, 53–54. c Ibid., 106–7, 133–36.

117

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah Table 11

Intertextual allusions to the hypostatic notions (cont.)

,‫אמר ֵא ַלי ָׂש ֵאהּו ְב ֵח ֶיקָך‬ ַ ֹ ‫ ִּכי־ת‬:‫ יְ ִל ְד ִּתיהּו‬,‫ם־אנ ִֹכי‬ ָ ‫ל־ה ָעם ַהּזֶ ה ִא‬ ָ ‫ ֵאת ָּכ‬,‫יתי‬ ִ ‫ֶה ָאנ ִֹכי ָה ִר‬ ‫ ֲא ֶׁשר נִ ְׁש ַּב ְע ָּת ַל ֲאב ָֹתיו‬,‫ ַעל ָה ֲא ָד ָמה‬,‫ת־הּיֹנֵ ק‬ ַ ‫ַּכ ֲא ֶׁשר יִ ָּׂשא ָהא ֵֹמן ֶא‬ ‫א החכמה תהלל נפשה ובקרב עם אלהים תתפאר‬ ‫ה בשמים יחדיו עמו הייתי ובמעמקי תהומות שם אני‬ ‫ט מראש קדמי תבל נבראתי ולעלמי עד לא יסוף זכרי‬ ‫י במשכן קדשו לפניו עבדתי ושם בצין אתו קמתי‬

1 ΘΕΕ πατέρων καὶ Κύριε τοῦ ἐλέους ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σου 2 καὶ τῇ σοφίᾳ σου κατεσκεύσασας ἄνθρωπον, ἵνα δεσπόζῃ τῶν ὑπὸ σοῦ γενομένων κτισμάτω 9 μετὰ σοῦ ἡ σοφία ἡ εἰδυῖα τὰ ἔργα σου καὶ παροῦσα, ὅτε ἐποίεις τὸν κόσμον

Num. 11:12d Sir 24:1 5 9 10 Wis 7:1–2

Wis 9:9

d Num 11:12 in the LXX: μὴ ἐγὼ ἐν γαστρὶ ἔλαβον πάντα τὸν λαὸν τοῦτον, ἢ ἐγὼ ἔτεκον αὐτούς, ὅτι λέγεις μοι, λάβε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸν κόλπον σου, ὡσεὶ ἄραι τιθηνὸς τὸν θηλάζοντα, εἰς τὴν γῆν ἣν ὤμοσας τοῖς πατράσιν αὐτῶν.

linked to the concept of Torah, which were dynamically developed during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods.331 To begin, ἐν ἀρχῇ in the LXX seems to translate ‫אׁשית‬ ִ ‫ ְּב ֵר‬in Gen 1:1. Philo explicitly connects ἐν ἀρχῇ to λόγος.332 In Sir 24:9, ἀπ᾿ ἀρχῆς “from the beginning” is used instead of ἐν ἀρχῇ. As Anderson observes, Tg. Onq. and Tg. Ps.-J., exclude ‫ חכמה‬from Gen 1:1, and also exclude the term ‫שכלל‬, while Tg. Neof. and Frg. Tg. include ‫חכמה‬, also include ‫שכליל‬.333 The uses of ‫ חכמה‬in the targums allude to a compositional and exegetic strategy, which reflects the intertextual intersection between these texts.334 One interesting fact is that the 331 As examined earlier, the primitive forms of the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah appear in the Hebrew Bible, Wisdom literature, and rabbinic literature, and Gen 1:1–2; Prov 8:1, 22–31; Num 11:12; Sir 24:1–10; Wis 7:1–2; 9:9–10; Ps 154 (11QPsa 18); Gen 1:1 (Tg. Onq., Tg. Ps.-J., Tg. Neof., Frg. Tg.), Philo’s On the Creation, and even in the NT (e.g., Jn 1:1–18). 332 Philo, Conf. xxviii, 146: γὰρ ἀρχὴ καὶ ὄνομα θεοῦ καὶ λόγος καὶ ὁ κατ’ εἰκόνα ἄνθρωπος καὶ ὁ ὁρῶν, Ἰσραήλ, προσαγορεύεται. “for he is called, “the Beginning,” and the Name of God, and His Word, and the Man after His image, and “he that sees” that is Israel.” 333 Anderson, “The Interpretation of Genesis 1:1 in the Targums,” CBQ I 52 (1990), 24. As Anderson observes, in the biblical texts, such as Jer 10:12; 51:15; Ps 104:24, we can see God’s use of W/wisdom in creating the world. 334 McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992), 52. The English translation of Tg. Neof of Gen 1:1 reads, “From the beginning ‘with wisdom’ the

118

Chapter 1

midrashic interpretation in Gen 1:1 to 2:1, places Wisdom in the entire creative process, and inserts Wisdom into the beginning of creation.335 According to Gen. Rab. i, 1, the word for “beginning” in Prov 8:22–31 refers to both the Torah and personified Wisdom in the creation context in Prov 8:22–31.336 In a manner similar to the concept and images of personified Wisdom, the term ‫שכלל‬ (skll) in the interpretation of Gen 1:1 also signifies the preexistence of Torah (e.g., Wisdom or Intellect) in the targums (e.g., Tg. Neof. and the Fragmentary Targum). This explicitly corroborates a shifting process of the biblical and classical rabbinic concepts of Torah into a new hypostatic notion of Torah, and the profound relationships and interactions between the hypostatic notions of Torah. The association between the biblical and rabbinic concepts of the Torah and personified Wisdom in the creation context substantiates their profound relationships with Philo’s Logos, which is associated with the Word of God, as noted earlier. There is also a critical similarity to the activities and images of the personified Wisdom figure in Sir 24:9 and Wis 7:1–2; 9:9–10 in the creation context, as seen in the Table 11. Wis 9:4, ὴν τῶν σῶν θρόνων πάρεδρον σοφίαν, “Wisdom, who sits by your throne,” alludes to the status of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:30. In addition, the personified Wisdom figure in Sir 24:9–10, which is not extant in Hebrew, also appears in a profound nexus with the image of personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22–31. As examined earlier, there is controversy regarding the interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬, but the variety of positions, in my view, offers a better Memra of the Lord created and perfected the heavens and the earth. For creation of the world by/in wisdom.” Cf. Prov 8:22, 3:19; Wis 9:9; Ps 104:24. In contrast to the centrality of Wisdom Tg. Neof. to Gen 1:1, in Gen. Rab. i, 4, the “beginning” is identified with the Torah. The creation and purpose of the world is “for the sake of the Torah alone,” and for revealing the secrets of the Torah by the will of “the Lord your God” (Ex 20:2). In this sense, a hypostatic notion of Wisdom is identified with preexistent Torah. Gen. Rab. speaks of God creating the world by the Torah and Wisdom. 335 Wisdom in the targums particularly means “instrument” or “artisan,” as well as “Torah” in keeping with rabbinic interpretation. There are allusions here allude to the similar roles of personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31. This is also corroborated by the interpretation of τεχνῖτις as “craftswoman” or “artisan” in Wis 7:21 and 8:6 and its use as a neologism in Wis 14:2. Cf. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 286, 414; Lenzi, “Proverbs 8:22–31,” 706–8; Johan Lust, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie, A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint, 2 vols. (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996), 2:474. 336 Harry Freedman (trans.), Midrash Rabbah: Genesis, vol. 1, ed. Maurice Simon, S. M. Lehrman, J. Israelstam, Judah J. Slotki, Joseph Rabinowitz, A. Cohen, and Louis I. Rabinowitz (London: Soncino Press, 1961), i, 1: “Thus God consulted the Torah and created the world while the Torah declares, IN THE BEGINNING GOD CREATED, BEGINNING referring to Torah, as in the verse, The Lord made me as the beginning of His way (Prov 8:2).” The speaker explicitly appears as the Torah and personified Wisdom.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

119

understanding of the various images of personified Wisdom and its relationships with Incarnate Logos, Jesus. Along these lines, I will further discuss the interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬, as a means of elucidating the various images of the hypostatic notions of Torah in the creation context. First, we can see that in a manner similar to the state of personified Wisdom in Wis 9:4, ‫ ָאמֹון‬is translated as ἁρμόζουσα in the LXX, which can be translated in English in a verbal adjective meaning “to join, to accommodate, bring into harmony.” In a similar sense, Bruce K. Waltke also prefers to translate ‫ ָאמֹון‬as “to be firm, faithful,” in an infinitive absolute form, and also suggests a possible translation as “constantly,” in an adverbial form by considering the words ‫יֹום יֹום‬, ‫ל־ע ֽת‬ ֵ ‫ ְּב ָכ‬, as alluding to a temporal lapse moving from the past tense to the present tense in relation to the creation of Genesis.337 It is evident that these interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬appear to explain the roles and features of personified Wisdom as a preexistent and independent being in creation. However, the meaning of the term ‫ ָאמֹון‬, when holistically considering the literary, textual, and contextual dimensions, appears to be incompatible with a verbal or adverbial (or adjective) form or an absolute infinite form. Rather, it is best seen as a noun representing the state of subject(s). In this context, it is worth noting that through a particular midrashic and encyclopedic method, Gen. Rab. i, 1 enumerates various interpretations of lexical items similar to ‫ ָאמֹון‬, which can be gleaned from other scriptural verses, such as “covered” or “hidden” (Lam 4:5)338 or “brought

337 Bruce K. Waltke, The Book of Proverbs (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 420–21. Waltke considers a suitable contextual interpretation instead of the option of an infinitive absolute form. Cf. Isa 26:2, Ps 12:2; 31:24; Prov 14:5, 20:6, 31:17; 2 Sam 20:19. See also Robert B. Y. Scott, “Wisdom in Creation: The ’Āmôn of Proverbs VIII 30,” VT 10.2 (1960): 220. Scott notes, “Particularly, in verse 30 where it corresponds to the adverbs ‘daily’ [sic!] (yom yom) and ‘always’ (bkl ʿt).” In fact, in light of Hebrew Bible texts, ‫ ָאמֹון‬seems to be related to an adverbial and adjective form which means “faithful,” or “faithfully or truthfully.” 338 As noted in Gen. Rab. i, 1, the interpretation of ‫ ָאמֹון‬as “hidden” can be gleaned from the verses, such as ‫תֹולע‬ ָ ‫“ ָה ֱא ֻמנִ ים ֲע ֵלי‬they that were clad in scarlet” (Lam 4:5) and ‫א ֵֹמן‬ “brought up or hidden” (Esth 2:7). The main meaning of Amun (or Amon), who appears as a supreme creator or the sole god of gods in creation hymns in Egyptian sources, is “hidden.” See Pritchard, ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament, 368. In Amun as the Sole God [hundredth stanza], we read, “One is Amon, hiding himself from them, concealing himself from the (other) gods, so that his (very) color is unknown.” Similarly, “No god came into being before him; there were no other” (iv, 10). Amun, who came into being at the beginning, is unknown and has a mysterious nature so that his majesty might be disclosed. In the two-hundredth stanza, we also read, “All gods are three: Amon, Re, and Ptah, and there is no second to them (This is a statement of trinity)” and “‘Hidden’ is his name as Amon, he is Re in face, and his body is Ptah.”

120

Chapter 1

up” (Esth 2:7; 2:20b), and “great” (Nah 3:8), as well as “artisan” (2 Kgs 10:1).339 Fox makes a connection with ‫( א ֵֹמן‬Esth 2:7) and ‫( ְב ָא ְמנָ ה‬Esth 2:20b) meaning “bringing up” or “hidden or secretly” and ‫ אצל‬meaning “with” as a preposition of proximity.340 By this logic, Fox grammatically also combines it with a qal passive participle meaning “being raised” or “growing up,” as “an adverbial complement to the main verb.”341 Fox further makes a semantic combination between ‫( ָהא ֵֹמן‬Num 11:12) as a noun meaning as a “child” or “nursling” and “sucking” or “growing up,” which contains an adverbial or verbal meaning.342 This reinforces the image of a child “sucking” or “nestling in and being embraced” or “fitting (or suiting) together with” in the arms of parents in as a passive particle form, which alludes to a “binding, or uniting” in God as His delight.343 Importantly, the question of how to translate and grammatically interpret ‫אׁשית‬ ֣ ִ ‫ֽהוה קָ֭ נָ נִ י ֵר‬ ֗ ָ ְ‫ י‬in Prov 8:22 – especially of whether ‫ קָ֭ נָ נִ י‬means “created” or as “possessed or [begotten or acquired]” – appears to be a critical issue in interpreting the identity and status of personified Wisdom in the creation context. The important point is that the interpretations of ‫ קָ֭ נָ נִ י‬convey a meaning of both “birth and pre-existence” rather than just “created.”344 Specifically, rabbinic text, such as b. Pesaḥ. 54a. Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Shirata 9:123–25, and 339 Jacob Neusner, and Alan J. Avery-Peck, Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism (Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005), 941–65. This rabbinic hermeneutic strategy in Gen. Rab. i, 1 utilizes the lemmata constituted by the same root and its variants to arrive at a polysemous understanding of the word, which lead to the creating of a new theological conception. This strategy emphasizes the centrality of Torah and a theological relationship with God that is possible through the Torah, which serves as an intermediary between God and humanity. 340 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 285–88. Fox notes that even if the image of wisdom in v. 31a is an image of a child or nursling figure, the image of wisdom in vv. 31b, 32 speaks in a sense of parents (or nurse) or teacher. He thereby suggests “three categories: 1) artisan; 2) constant(ly); 3) ward/nursling” (285). 341 Ibid. 342 Ibid.; idem, “ʾAmon again,” 699–702. Cf. 2 Kgs 10:1, 5; Esth 2:7; Num 11:12. 343 Scott, “Wisdom in Creation,” 222–23, also argues that ‫ אמון‬means “binding, uniting” in terms of an intimate relationship with God. This interpretation is similar to the translation of ἁρμόζουσα (Prov 8:30) as “to join, to accommodate, bring into harmony,” in the LXX despite its grammatical and terminological ambiguity. Scott, in this sense, excludes the possibility of a hypostatic meaning of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in relation to a poetic personification of Wisdom in Prov 3:19–20. 344 Kenneth T. Aitken, “Proverbs,” The Daily Study Bible Series (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986), 82. Aitken notes, “In the Old Testament, birth can happily be described as an act of creation (Ps 139:13; Cf. Dt 32:6), and an act of creation just as happily as a birth (Ps 90:2).” The Masoretic Text keeps the interpretation as “possessed or [acquired]” including the meaning “begotten,” while κύριος ἔκτισέν με ἀρχὴν in the LXX, ἔκτισέν is translated into “created.”

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

121

Mek. d’R. Simeon b. Yoḥai, Shirata 35:5, explicitly refer to the Torah as possessed (Prov 8:22) and created by God before the creation of the world.345 This provides a critical insight into the author’s theological intentions, exegetical practices and hermeneutic strategies regarding the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, which I will further discuss later in this study. By contrast, in a manner different from its ‘child’ or ‘son’ image, ‫ ָאמֹון‬in a nominal form appears to be related to a ‘matured adult’ image of ‘artisan’ (τεχνῖτις, craftsman or master in Wis 7:21) in keeping with the images and activities of personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31, and in the creation context in Gen. Rab. i, 1.346 This corroborates not only an identical relationship between the ‘sage’ image of ‫ ָאמֹון‬and personified Wisdom but also the image of its matured heavenly figure with profound wisdom. These images and roles of ‫ ָאמֹון‬appear to coincide and be compatible with Clifford’s interpretation of the images of ‫ ָאמֹון‬as a ‘sage’ or ‘teacher’ in accordance with the Mesopotamian mythological tradition that is derived from the Akaddian ummānu.347 Indeed, the rhetorical features of personified Wisdom in Prov 8 and her status in creation represent the image of ‫ ָאמֹון‬as a sage or teacher. In addition, the image of ‫ ָאמֹון‬, which is connected to ‫ ָהא ֵֹמן‬in Num 11:12, as also noted in Gen. Rab i. 1, actually refers to the image of a nursing father or a foster-father (e.g., ‫ א ְֹמנַ יִ ְך‬in Isa 49:23) rather than the image of a ‘nursling’ or ‘child’ (‫ ) ַהּיֹנֵ ק‬being nursed by the father.348 This shows that the roles and status of ‫ ָאמֹון‬thereby appear as a preexistent and independent being, or in an equal position with God in the creation contexts. The most crucial point in this examination is that the various inferential links in Gen. Rab. i, 1, which show that the diverse and creative features of rabbinic rhetorics are interlocked with various interpretations of modern scholars, and they are significantly involved and convergent with the divine or God-like images of personified Wisdom as well as Torah. In summary, this examination substantiates that the image of ‫ ָאמֹון‬is not only referred to as both “a child [or son] nursing or growing up with God” but also as “a sage or master with wisdom and authority who grew up with God,” as 345 W. David Nelson, Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yoḥai, 1st ed. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006), Shirata 35:5 (7: D–J), 154–55. 346 Ibid. Clifford (100) notes that the MT vocalization ʾomman, which means “artisan” in Song 7:2, presupposes its compatibility with a late derivation from Akkadian ummānu. While Wis 7:21 is a modern reconstructed Hebrew version of the Wisdom of Solomon, it seems to show a credible nexus between ‫ אומנת‬and ‫אמון‬, since ‫ החכמה‬is used in accord with ‫אומנת‬, which is translated into τεχνῖτις in Greek. 347 Clifford, Proverbs, 99–101. 348 Freedman, Midrash Rabbah, i, 1. “As an omen (nursing-father) [in Num 11:12] carries the sucking child.”

122

Chapter 1

well as a divine being existing and working with God in creation. These “sage” and “artisan” images are exegetically and semantically strengthened by the intertextual and theological nexuses between Torah and personified Wisdom. By considering these literary and textual features, Clifford concludes that ‫ָאמֹון‬ appears as a sage-like or matured heavenly figure symbolizing wisdom. While I agree with the Mesopotamian origin of ‫ ָאמֹון‬from a philological perspective, I also consider its literary development (from inchoate stage to full-fledge stage) throughout the Persian and Hellenistic periods. In this sense, rather than asserting a rigid position based on a biblical and philological analysis, I will preserve these various interpretations for the phenomenological analysis of the images of Torah later in this study. In all, this examination provides a critical insight into the dualistic conception of the images of personified Wisdom, which represent an angelic and divine-like image of Torah, and which are in a profound relationship with God in the context of creation (e.g., Prov 8:22–31, Gen 1:1, 2:1). This further leads to a critical understanding of the deep nexus between the images of personified Wisdom as ‫ ָאמֹון‬and the images of Torah, which are analogous to the images of the Johannine Logos in Jn 1:1–18 as shown in the Table 11. Scholars skeptical that personified Wisdom is the basis of the Johannine Logos have noted several discontinuities between the Johannine Logos and the personified Wisdom figure in Prov 8:22–31. Waltke points out that a historical critical exegesis of Prov 8:22–31 does not offer a basis for patristic exegesis, which identifies personified Wisdom with Incarnate Jesus in “their preexistence and their assumed roles as agents in the creation” (Prov 3:19–20; cf. Jn 1:3; 1 Cor 8:6; Col 1:15–18; Heb 1:3).349 He also asserts that the ancient versions of Jewish Wisdom literature, which stand in relation to Prov 8:22–31, do not offer a consistent ground for the Christology of the NT.350 Karen Jobes points out the difference that personified Wisdom in Proverbs is only a creature created by God and a witness for the creation, whereas the Johannine Logos appears as a creator, which is theologically identical with God. Jobes also argues that the nonexistence of the Greek word sophia in the Gospel of John, or in the Johannine Epistles, presents a discontinuity between the Christology of the Gospel of John and the ideas of the Logos and Wisdom (i.e., sophia) in Hellenistic Jewish writings.351 Some scholars also note that a rigid textual nexus between Philo’s writings 349 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 127–28. 350 Ibid. 351 Karen H. Jobes, “Sophia Christology: The Way of Wisdom?” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. James I. Packer and Sven Soderlund (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 239.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

123

and the Fourth Gospel is ambiguous due to the absence of philosophical vocabulary and its allegorical methodologies in the Fourth Gospel, despite the terminological, semantic, and even theological connectivity between them.352 Nonetheless, on the basis of my analysis, it cannot be ignored that the Johannine Logos turns out to, intertextually, semantically, and theologically, have an implicit nexus with the images of ‫ ָאמֹון‬, which indicates personified Wisdom herself in Prov 8:22–31. Indeed, the ‘child or son’ image of ‫ָאמֹון‬ as ‘nursling,’ in Prov 8, shows a more critical similarity to the images of the Johannine Logos, i.e., Incarnate Jesus as the Son of God ‘begotten’ in the bosom of God the Father in Jn 1:18: “No one has ever seen God; the only begotten, who is in the bosom of the Father, he has made him known.”353 In Num 11:12, we can see more explicit parallels, in a similar motif and manner, to personified Wisdom (in relation to Torah) in the creation context in Gen 1 and Prov 8. Num 11:12 is originally represented as a description about Moses’ relationship with the people of Israel. The image of ‫ ָהא ֵֹמן‬in Num 11:12, appears as a father nursing ‫ ַהיֹנֵ ק‬, which translates as “a child being nursed.” This implicit depiction concerning a “child or son” being nursed and carried by his father in Num 11:12 demonstrates that the term ‫ ָאמֹון‬, as used in reference to personified Wisdom in Prov 8:30–31, similarly reflects an intimate relationship between personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬and God. 352 Brown, John I–XII, lvii–lviii. Brown observes a methodological similarity between Philo and John, i.e., a method using the concept of the Logos for the interpretations regarding the hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom and Torah in the Wisdom literature. The concept of the Logos triggers a strong curiosity that Philo’s Logos can be the basis of the Johannine Logos. In this sense, Robinson also tries to prove that the Prologue has a close connection with first-century Palestinian realia. See Robinson, “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John,” 128. 353 R. L. Roberts, “The Rendering ‘Only Begotten’ in John 3:16,” ResQ 16 (1973): 4; Everett F. Harrison, “A Study of John 1:14,” in Unity and Diversity in NT Theology: Essays in Honor of G. E. Ladd, ed. Robert A. Guelish (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978), 32. These scholars think that the verse can be paralleled to the “only one of his kind,” but not Jesus being “begotten.” In the LXX, μονογενης corresponds to the translation of the Hebrew ‫יחיד‬. (Roberts, 8). The verse can be related to ‫יחיד‬, which is used for Abraham’s “only” son in Gen 22:2. For this reason, the title “only” son came to mean particularly “beloved” son in Jewish texts. They note that in μονογενης (1:14, 18), γεωης etymologically and semantically derives from a word meaning “one of a kind,” even though many patristic writers read the term as “only begotten,” but this may imply more about second-century Christology. Consequently, it seems to be reasonable to translate “ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς ὁ ὢν εἰς τὸν κόλπον τοῦ πατρός,” as “the only begotten [only one of his kind] Son, who is in the bosom of the Father.” I will discuss, in detail later in this study, the relationship of the images of personified Wisdom to the images and activities of Jesus as “a sage with wisdom and authority who grew up with God” in creation.

124

Chapter 1

The dualistic conception in the “son” and “father” images of personified Wisdom similarly emerges in the dualistic conception of the angelic and divine-like images of Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos. Philo’s Logos appears not only as a prerequisite for the Johannine Logos but also has a critical impact on the theological and philosophical ideas of early Christianity. If we assume that Philo’s Logos was a pre-existent linkage, which connects a transcendent and immanent divinity to humanity, this shows a shifting process from the pre-existent Logos to the incarnation of the Logos.354 This further substantiates that the dualistic conception of Philo’s Logos as both an angelic agent and a second God, which was examined earlier, appears in the angelic and divine-like images of personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos.355 Specifically, the allusions to this relationship between Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos in Jn 1:1–2, 14, 17, 18 (as seen in the Table 11) demonstrate that this nexus is developed into a profound relationship with other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as memra and shekhinah, as examined earlier. Related to this point, there is controversy about whether there is an essential connection between the Logos (Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos), memra and shekhinah in the Judaic and Hellenistic religious worlds in antiquity, and whether the personified and hypostatized features of the Logos and Wisdom are associated with the personification or hypostatization of memra and shekhinah in the targumic and midrashic literature.356 In line with the arguments of Maybaum, Ginsberger, and Moore, who believe that the Palestinian Targums were edited from at least the third century CE onwards, Charles K. Barrett downplays the relevance of the memra as for studying the doctrine of the Johannine Logos, seeing it as “a blind alley.”357 However, scholars, such as Macho and McNamara, who follow a theological interpretation of memra and shekhinah, do not consider it reasonable to exclude the semantic and theological correlations between them and the concepts and images of the Johannine Logos.358 Several scholars, such as McHugh and Ronning, ana354 Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 247. 355 Philo’s Logos provides a critical insight into the theological and philosophical characteristics of the Logos that was shared by early Judaism and Christianity. 356 Boyarin, Border Lines, 117; Keener, 1:349; Hayward, “The Memra of YHWH,” 412–18. 357 Charles K. Barrett, The Gospel according to St. John: An Introduction with Commentary and Notes on the Greek Text, 2nd ed. (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1975), 153; George F. Moore, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, 1:417–19; idem, “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology,” 41–85. 358 McNamara, Targum and Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1972), 102–3; Chilton, Judaic Approaches to the Gospels, 271–304; Macho, Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana: edición príncipe, introducción general y versión castellana, vol. 4 (Spain: Editorial CSIC Press, 1974); idem, “El Logos,” 381–96.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

125

lyze that the angelic and divine-like concepts of the Johannine Logos appear to be paralleled in the exegesis of memra and shekhinah, in a manner similar to the dualistic features of Philo’s Logos.359 Edwards also points out that the memra, identified with the ‘Word of God’ (Gen 15:6) in the context of creation (Gen 1:1–5), which literarily and theologically connects various hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom, dynamically developed into the Johannine Logos in early Christian thought around the first and second centuries CE.360 Despite the limits of the philological evidence, as Wolfson also acknowledges, Philo’s Logos (Leg. I. viii, 19–20) is semantically linked to the memra, which is also associated with the ‘Word of God’ in the Hebrew Bible and the ‘Torah’ in the Jewish wisdom and rabbinic literature.361 In this context, some targumic scholars, such as McNamara and Macho, who assume the earlier dates of the proto-targums (approx. 1–2 centuries CE), a dating which coincides with that of the Johannine Prologue, investigated the intertextual and literary relationships between the merma and shekhinah in the targums and the Johannine Logos in the Gospel of John.362 As previously examined, it is crucial to note that the interpretations surrounding bereshit (‫אשית‬ ִ ‫) ְב ֵר‬, in the context of creation in Gen. Rab. i. 1, prove the semantic and theological nexus between the images of various hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos, as well as the memra and shekhinah in the targumic and midrashic literature, which are intertextually and hermeneutically connected with the Johannine Logos.363 On the one hand, McNamara obverses the common features of the ‘angel’ and ‘firstborn son’ images of the memra and the Johannine Logos by analyzing 359 McHugh, John 1–4, 6, 95–96; Ronning, The Jewish Targums, 46–69, 271; Boyarin, Border Lines, 275–76. 360 M. J. Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” JECS 3.3 (1995): 262–70. 361 Wolfson, Philo, 1:287. Hayward also denies a direct connection between memra as the Divine Name and Philo’s Logos as Philo also noted a distinction between the Logos and the Divine Name as a deity (cf. Conf. xxviii, 146). Wolfson, Philo, 1:255–58, 287–88. Wolfson believes that the concept of memra is semantically associated with Philo’s Logos, as both convey an interchangeable concept as a mediator in the context of creation. By this logic, it can be inferred that Philo’s dual concept of the Law (i.e., Torah) of Moses and the pre-existent Torah is connected and hermeneutically developed into the concept of various hypostatic notions (memra, the Johannine Logos, and personified Wisdom) in the context of creation (Gen 1 and Prov 8). See also Hayward, Divine Name, 137–39. 362 McNamara, Targum and Testament Revisited, 147, 160–61, 167–252. McNamara, “Logos of the Fourth Gospel,” 439–43; M. L. Klein, ed. and trans., The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources, 2 vols. (AnBib; Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1980), 2:47. 363 Anderson, “The Interpretation of Gen 1:1 in the Targums,” 27–29; Burney, The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel, 36–43 (esp. 40–41).

126

Chapter 1

their biblical hermeneutic affinities and theological relationships.364 As explicated earlier, the memra appears to be associated with the Angel of the Lord in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Num 27:14; Ex 3:2, 4) and in several targumic texts (e.g., Tg. Neof. to Ex 12:12–13; Tg. Ps.-J. to Dt 31:6; Targum Prophets to Mal 3:1). As Runia also notes, the angelic and ‘firstborn son’ images of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom, in the context of creation, are associated with those of the memra and the Johannine Logos, and thereby create the angelic image of Torah.365 In this context, in a manner similar to Philo’s Logos, the memra as a ‘Jewish’ Logos, which is identified with the Word of God, is semantically related to the Johannine Logos in Jn 1:1–2, 18. As Gieschen notes, the angelic image of the memra appears to be parallel to that of the Johannine Logos as well as other hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah.366 On the other hand, in addition to an angelic image of the memra, the concepts, usages, and images of memra in a mythic and anthropomorphic form, prove a divine-like image of shekhinah, which reflects the hidden presence and the omnipresence of God in the targumic and midrashic literature. The divine-like image of the memra, associated with the images of voice, light, and shekhinah, appears to be exegetically and phenomenologically connected to the God-like image of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom, as well as the Johannine Logos, which mainly appear in the creation context.367 As H. Ringgren explains, the angelic and hypostatic 364 Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” 279; John F. McHugh, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on John 1–4, ed. G. Stanton (London; New York: T&T Clark, 2009), 7–8. It is conceivable that the Evangelist of the Prologue utilized the concept of Logos, which was likely easier for the Jewish “Greeks” (Jn 12:21), who possessed the basic knowledge of Greek philosophy, to understand. 365 D. T. Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey (Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 78–83; M. V. Fox, “ʾAmon Again,” JBL 115.4 (1996): 699–702; idem, Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, 1st ed. (Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000), 285–87. 366 Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 103–14, 273–79. Gieschen shows the angelic concept of the memra in relation to the Johannine Logos by analyzing the angelic concepts and images of shekhinah, Glory, and divine names. Chilton emphasizes the theological relationships of the images of the Johannine Logos to the angelic images of the memra in Isaiah Targum (30:11, 27–33; 48:3, 10–16; 65:1) Chilton, Targumic Approaches to the Gospels: Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986), 1–11; idem, The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum (Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1983), 56–67. 367 Philo’s Logos, as the concept of a ‘second god’ (δεύτερος θεός) (Opif. xxv, 77) contain various images (son, king, priest) of an angelic mediator (Leg. III. xv, 46; Fug. xx, 110) through hermeneutic strategies (angelization, personification, hypostatization) which combine the concepts of ‘nomos’ (νομος) of Greek philosophy and the concept of Torah of the Law of Moses. Philo’s Logos appears not only as the image of an angelic mediator presupposed by middle-Platonism but also a divine-like and hypostatic image through the concept

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

127

images of the memra appears through the literary, intertextual, and theological interactions with the concepts and images of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom, linked to the concept of Torah, in the Wisdom and midrashic literature (Prov 8–9, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and Enoch and midrash, etc.) during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods.368 This shows the speculations regarding hypostatic notions, such as Torah and personified Wisdom, which existed in ancient Jewish wisdom and rabbinic sources in Palestinian Judaism, were sophisticatedly articulated in Philo’s Logos in Hellenized Judaism and were later developed into the hypostatic concepts, such as memra and shekhinah and linked to the images of Torah. Specifically, the divine and hypostatic concepts and images of personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos, linked to the concept of Torah, appear to be semantically and theologically consistent with those of memra and shekhinah in the context of creation in the targumic and rabbinic literature. The ‘divine light’ of Philo’s Logos (Praem. vii, 43–46; Leg. II. xxi, 87; xxii, 88) appears similar to the divine-like concept and image of ‘light’ associated with the memra and shekhinah in the targums. The images of personified Wisdom, such as ‘father’, ‘sage’, and ‘teacher’ in Prov 8, as Clifford demonstrated, appear to be connected through its theological implications to the mystical and divine-like images of Philo’s Logos, the memra, and shekhinah.369 Specifically, in the incarnation of the Logos in ὁ λόγος σὰρξ ἐγένετο “The Word became flesh” in Jn 1:14, the verb, ἐγένετο is used in ἐγένετο ὁ ἄνθρωπος εἰς ψυχὴν ζῶσαν “the man became a living being” in Gen 2:7 in the LXX. In addition, ἐσκήνωσεν ἐν ἡμῖν (“His dwelling among us”) in Jn 1:14b is elucidated by τὴν δόξαν αὐτοῦ (“His glory”) i.e., the glory of God, which reflects the divine-like image of the shekhinah. This corroborates that a mystical image of “dwelling” Incarnate Logos in the world explicitly reflects a divine-like image of the shekhinah as the glory of God.370 The divine-like image of ‘his name’ (τὸ ὄνομα αὐτοῦ), linked to of a ‘second God’ of Philo’s Logos. León viewed memra as an alternative term for the Tetragrammaton, that is a theological term that symbolically expresses the divine essence, such as personified Wisdom. León, Dios-palabra, 106. H. R. Mackintosh took a negative stance on the relationships between the memra of the Jews and Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos, which were deeply influenced by Greek philosophy. H. R. Mackintosh, The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ, 2nd ed. (New York: Scribner, 1916), 116. 368 Ringgren, Word and Wisdom Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East, 163–64. Ringgren also notes that the divine names mainly appear as a substitute for the instances of memra that convey the personification or hypostatization in the targumic texts. 369 Clifford, Proverbs: A Commentary, 26–28, 99–101; Abelson, The Immanence of God, 150–73. Abelson evaluated that the memra had with personified Wisdom, in which divine immanence was emphasized more than the concept of a mediator, such as Philo’s Logos. 370 Ruzer, “From Man as Locus of God’s Indwelling,” 383.

128

Chapter 1

the Johannine Logos (Jn 1:12), appears to be profoundly related to the images of memra and shekhinah associated with the Divine Name.371 This shows that the mystical and divine-like images of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom linked to the concept of Torah are profoundly connected to the literary and biblical hermeneutic features against the background of the memra and shekhinah linked to the Divine Name.372 Furthermore, the divine-like concepts and images of memra-Logos (i.e., the Word of God) appear in the works of Justin Martyr, such as Dialogue with Trypho and Apologies in the middle of the second century CE.373 The explanations of the pre-existent Word (which is semantically identified with the memra), pre-existing than Abraham in Dialogue with Trypho, support the beliefs in the memra, i.e., the Word of the Lord (Gen 15:6; Dt 1: 32) in the targums, and thereby corroborate the divine-like and hypostatic images of Incarnate Logos and personified Wisdom in the creation context (Jn 1:1–18; 8:56–59) as well as the memra and shekhinah.374 It shows that the Johannine Logos implicitly appears to have an angelic and divine-like image formulated through the biblical hermeneutic and theological amalgamations of the images of memra and shekhinah against the backdrop of the metaphysical and philosophical Logos and the Word of God.375 In all, this examination shows that the usages of memra in the targums, which goes beyond a simple literary euphemism, show a theological implication 371 Gieschen, Angelomorphic Christology, 271–80. 372 See Ronning, The Jewish Targums, 13; Boyarin, Border Lines: The Partition of JudeoChristianity (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004), 112–14. Burrus notes parallels between the symbolic and mythological expression of personified Wisdom and the literary expression of the Aramaic memra. Burrus, “Creatio Ex Libidine,” 144. 373 Edwards, “Justin’s Logos,” 262. 374 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, 56:1–22 (83–88); 126.4 (190–91); B. Grossfeld, Targum Onkelos to Deuteronomy (Wilmington: Delaware, 1987), 20; McNamara, Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy, 23–24; Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, 11; Boyarin, Border Lines, 27–29, 37–44; idem, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 275–78; Mack, Logos und Sophia, 6. In Jn 8:56–59, Incarnate Logos, i.e., Jesus claims already to have revealed himself to Abraham before the Incarnation. However, this does not guarantee that Abraham saw a hypostasis in his physical eyes. In Gen 15:1–6, we read that “And it was after these things that ‘the word of God’ appeared to Abraham” (v. 1), and where it says that “Abraham believed in God, and he reckoned it for him as righteousness.” (v. 6) In this connection, in Jn 8:57–58, Jews say, (57) “You are not yet fifty years old, and have you seen Abraham?” Jesus answers them, “(58) Truly, truly I say to you, before Abraham was, I am.” This means that Abraham would be one of those “who received him,” and became “one of the children of God.” 375 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho: Selections from the Fathers of the Church, 11:2, 4 (pp. 21–22); 61 (pp. 93–94); 128:1 (p. 93). Although the Aramaic word memra does not appear in these texts, the Word of Law of God (e.g., 61:1) mainly appears as a son-like and angelic mediator separate from God.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

129

for various hypostatic symbols, such as voice, light, shekinah, and the Divine Name. It illustrates that the memra appears to be associated not only with an angelic image of entity created by God, such as in the expressions of the Angel of God but also with a divine-like image of various hypostatic notions, such as voice, light, and shekhinah, which attenuate a boundary with God through literary and hermeneutic strategies. Even if the usages of memra and shekhinah in rabbinic and targumic literature explicitly do not prove the personification or hypostatization of Torah itself, it substantiates the angelic and divine-like images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, which are formulated through the literary, exegetical, and symbolic strategies. It also shows that the dual concept (angelic and divine-like) and images of memra and shekhinah implicitly create a relationship with the concepts and images of Torah. Specifically, it illustrates that the concepts of memra and shekhinah were gradually changed by the interactions with various religious and theological concepts of Torah, which are involved with an angelic and divine-like image in the mystical and anthropomorphic descriptions of God. However, as examined earlier, the conceptual changes of Torah and its relevant hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah and memra, does not explicitly appear in rabbinic literature. Moreover, the term shekhinah is not generally connected and identified, in the ideology of the Sages of the Talmud and the midrash, with various hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom, Logos, and Torah.376 Nonetheless, this examination, as seen above, demonstrates the dual conception of shekhinah as both angelic and divine-like mediators, which is also associated with the dual conception of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom which is grounded in the concept of Torah.377 Specifically, it substantiates the relationship between the concepts and images of memra and shekhinah and those of the Johannine Logos on the basis of their exegetical and theological interrelationships. Even though it is difficult to prove a direct philological and intertextual relationship between shekhinah and the concept of Torah in rabbinic literature, the case of memra in the targumic texts, as examined earlier, represents a critical phenomenological association, linking between various hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and shekhinah, which mainly appear from the Second Temple Jewish sources to the early Christian and rabbinic sources. In this sense, in my opinion, the case of memra appears as a critical concept, which can interconnect between shekhinah and other hypostatic notions of Torah, and as an instance of the conceptual change and development of Torah into the images of various hypostatic notions of 376 Urbach, The Sages, 64–65. 377 Ibid., 40.

130

Chapter 1

Torah. Despite the insufficiency and limits of philological and intertextual evidence for the historical and literary connections between various hypostatic notions, the case of memra illuminates the conceptual and theological changes of Torah and of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah. This examination thereby shows a critical phenomenological feature of the projection (application or appropriation) of the concept of Torah into the images of various hypostatic notions, which are evident throughout early Jewish and Christian sources. It thus implies the necessity of an in-depth phenomenological examination to support the continuity of the history of ideas regarding the images of Torah and the structure of thought and hermeneutical strategies of the authors, who formulate the images of Torah by utilizing parables and symbols that allude to an esoteric and hidden meaning through various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic sources. In summary, despite the complicated and combined nature of the hypostatic notions of Torah, this examination illuminates a distinctive set of associations, which can be mainly classified in two supposed traditions: a Logos-centered tradition, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, and a Wisdom-centered tradition, such as personified Wisdom and shekhinah. My findings suggest the necessity of a thorough reexamination not only of the distinctive features of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions but also, as we will see, of theological and philosophical interactions of hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in later rabbinic, philosophical, and Jewish mystical thought. In addition, this examination provides further evidence for the intertextual, theological, and exegetical nexuses of memra and shekhinah to personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos. Specifically, it shows that the terms, concepts, and images of shekhinah and memra, as they are manifest in the targumic and rabbinic literature as well as in the Wisdom literature, appear to be profoundly related to an angelic and divine-like image of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah.378 It thus shows a conceptual change (personification or hypostatization) of the hypostatic notions, such as memra and shekhinah, and thereby the formulation of the angelic and God-like images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah. It illuminates how the concepts and images of shekhinah and memra were used as parallels to other hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, which appear to be identified with Torah and how they created and enhanced the angelic and God-like images of Torah through the combination of the rabbinic rhetorics and Hellenistic 378 Urbach, The Sages, 40–41; Ronning, The Jewish Targums, 46–69.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

131

speculations. Furthermore, it is notable that the dual concept and images of memra and shekhinah can also be gleaned from the images of other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron, which is identified with the merkavah imagery, in rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical (e.g., Enochic and Hekhalot) literature.379 Against this backdrop, I will further discuss, in detail later in this study, the features of the three images (angelic, God-like, and messianic) of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, which were dynamically developed in accordance with their theological and hermeneutic combinations and permutations throughout the history of ancient and medieval Jewish and Christian thought. 4

Theological and Phenomenological Implications

This examination first demonstrates that the intertextual nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah in the Wisdom literature provides not only a critical understanding of the pre-existence and relationship of personified Wisdom with God in creation but also a way of approaching their theological relationships with other hypostatic notions of Torah. This intertextual examination also corroborates not only the profound theological relationships between the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, memra, and shekhinah, but also the development of the images of Torah personified and hypostatized in various (biblical, philosophical, rabbinic, and Jewish mystical) concepts of Torah, which were manifest during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. The linguistic similarities, intertextual allusions, and semantic continuities solve, to some extent, the puzzles of the relationships among the hypostatic notions of Torah, which are manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources. This examination first demonstrates that the concept of Torah and its relationship with personified Wisdom offers an effective foundation for the significant intertextual and theological nexuses between the hypostatic notions of Torah. Specifically, through the interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:30, 379 See Hugo Odeberg, 3 Enoch: Or, The Hebrew Book of Enoch (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928), xvii; xlv; Peter Schäfer et al., Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (‫( )סינופסיס לספרות ההיכלות‬Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), §§ 235–238. Michael D. Swartz (34) describes the phenomenological features of ancient Jewish mysticism as Merkavah mysticism, which “developed in Palestine and Babylonia between 3rd and 7th centuries,” and “before the philosophical and spiritual concepts that shaped Kabbalah entered the mainstream of Jewish intellectual life.” See Swartz, “Ancient Jewish Mysticism,” in Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah: New Insights and Scholarship, Jewish Studies in the 21st Century, ed. Frederick E. Greenspahn (New York: NYU Press, 2011), 33–34.

132

Chapter 1

we have examined their intertextual and theological relationships (especially personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos). This thereby shows that their images (a “child or son” image, or an “artisan or master” image, or a “sage or teacher” image), in relation to Torah, emerge in accordance with their semantic and theological relationships. As underlined earlier, Philo’s conception of the Logos as a mediator, under middle-Platonism’s influence, plays a critical role, not only in connecting the various hypostatic notions of Torah but also in providing a significant possibility that the divine Logos can be both the first human being and a “second God” as a hypostatic notion of Torah. Philo’s philosophical and theological accounts of the Logos reinforce the intertextual nexuses among the other hypostatic notions, as well as their theological relationships, and had an especially substantial impact on the Johannine Logos. The significant seeds sown for the unique birth of the Johannine Logos and its theology, result from the profound interactions of the hypostatic notions of Torah, especially Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom. The Johannine Logos, as a theological and philosophical notion shared by multifaceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity, provides a new interpretative method of understanding the features of Jewish exegetical practices (hypostatizing and personifying the concepts of theological and philosophical mediators), which were manifest in Jewish wisdom traditions and early Christian traditions. It is notable that the dualistic conception of personified Wisdom and Philo’s Logos appears in the angelic and God-like images of the Johannine Logos as Jesus. Above all, in addition to the angelic and God-like images of Jesus as the Johannine Logos, Jesus also has an explicit messianic image. Under the influences of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom and, the Johannine Logos plays a prominent role as a bridge for a mutual understanding among other hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah (e.g., memra and shekhinah), which developed within multi-faceted Judaism and early Christianity. This corroborates that the Johannine Logos concretizes a Logos-Wisdom theology, which originally appears in Philo’s Logos, and later developed into Logos-Christology and Wisdom-Christology within the interactive influences of Logos-Wisdom theology. Furthermore, we have seen explicit evidence of the memra and shekhinah, as the hypostatic notions of Torah, are related to the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah in multi-faceted Judaism as well as early Christianity. Furthermore, it can be inferred that the interactions between Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature, based on the theological and philosophical speculations on various hypostatic notions undeveloped in ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions, were later not only developed into the concepts and images of the memra and

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

133

shekhinah in the targumic and midrashic literature but were also emerged into the Johannine Logos, which is eventually convergent with the incarnation of Jesus in early Christianity. This also implies that the Evangelist, through the hermeneutic strategy of symbols, utilized the angelic and divine-like images of memra, shekhinah, and the Johannine Logos, as well as other hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, personified Wisdom linked to the concept of Torah, in order to prove the angelic and God-like images of Jesus as Incarnate Logos and thereby to support the divinity of Jesus as a theological dogma in the sense of Christian apologetics. In summary, this examination shows that the hypostatic notions, such as memra and shekhinah, might have been later influenced by the conceptual changes of early hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom linked to the concept of Torah, and thereby have been developed into the dualistic images (angelic and divine-like) of Torah. The concepts of memra and shekhinah trigger a critical theological and philosophical question: what are the roles of the various hypostatic notions, such as memra and shekhinah, in the formative process of the theological doctrine of the Logos in early Christianity? As noted earlier, it is necessary to examine the historical, ideological, and theological backgrounds of the formation of early Christian doctrine and the separation and interactions between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. Scholars, such as Segal, examine the background of theological debates in the first and second centuries, surrounding the idea of two powers in heaven, which conceptually derived from related passages in the Hebrew Bible (Dan 7:9; Ex 15:3; 23:20–23), and appear in early midrashim, such as Mek. d’R. Ishmael and Mek. d’R. Simeon b. Yoḥai.380 Wiillam D. Davies notes that 380 Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 69, 261–66. Segal believes that the idea of two powers in heaven, as a long-standing ancient heritage of the Jews, took shape after or around the era of Philo. In the Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Beshallaḥ 6, the YHWH of Ex 4:31 appears only as the Lord without an angelic or hypostatic mediator, such as mermra and Logos. This position appears as warn of the dangers of the interpretations of the memra in the targums, as it also appears in the Nicene Creed. Segal notes that both Christians and Gnostics became the targets of the rabbinic polemics regarding the idea of two powers in heaven. Some scholars, such as Lauterbach, understand the idea of two powers in heaven as was mainly formulated against Christianity and a philosophical dualism. Jacob Z. Lauterbach, Jesus in the Talmud (Pittsburgh, PA: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951); idem, Mekilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition on the Basis of the Manuscripts and Early Editions with and English Translation, Introduction and Notes (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1976), Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Baḥodesh 5:20–39, pp. 231–32; Shirata 4:21–31, pp. 31–32; Mek. d’R. Simeon b. Yoḥai, Shirata 30:1 (2: A–G). See the translation in Nelson, Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yoḥai, 132; Boyarin, Border Lines, 128–31, 145–47; J. Ronning, The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010), 33–36, 271, 275–78, 281. The idea of two powers of heaven in the Mekhiltot (e.g., Mek. d’R. Ishmael,

134

Chapter 1

the idea of two powers in the heaven, which spread among Semitic-speaking Jews from the late Second Temple period (early first century CE) to early second century CE, was dynamically developed in a theological and biblical hermeneutical relationship, along with various hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom and Logos, and is especially related to the conceptual formation of the Johannine Logos.381 It is conceivable that the angelic and hypostatic concepts of Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom manifest in ancient Jewish thought play a critical role in formulating the Memra-Logos theology, based on this idea of two powers in heaven, and thereby in further integrating the binitarianism with Incarnate Logos theology through the images of various hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah.382 Against this backdrop, Segal assumes that the Memra-Logos theology, based on the idea of two powers of heaven, was gradually marginalized as it was regarded as a heretical doctrine by the Rabbis who believed in monotheism in the context of several theological challenges, such as the Christian Logos theology and the Trinitarian doctrine, which were rapidly developing around the middle of the second century CE, after Bar Kokhba’s Second Revolt (132–135).383 It shows that the Rabbis Pisḥa 13: 9–11, p. 97) appears against the dangerous understandings about angels or agents described in the Hebrew Bible. Although it is believed that the final compilation date of the Mekhilta texts is after the seventh century CE, scholars such as Wacholder, see that MRI contains the same linguistic (Hebrew) expressions and contents of the Mishnah, the Palestinian Talmud, and Tosefta, as well as its similarities to the tannaitic midrash, which already existed in the Tannaim period (ca. 10–220). B. Z. Wacholder, “The Date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael,” Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 117–44. 381 William D. Davis, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology, 4th ed. (Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980), 147–76, esp. 170–72. It is conceivable that while the Rabbis were focusing on the concept of Torah in rabbinic Judaism, the memra in the targums also went through a transformative and development process, which includes theological implications, along with the idea of two powers in heaven. Segal and Boyarin see that the Jewish Memra-Logos theology was developed radically along with the idea of two powers of heaven, coincided with the early compiling period (approx. the second half of the first century) of the Palestinian Targums. Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 275–78; idem, Border Lines, 93–147. 382 L. W. Hurtado, One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism, vol. 3rd ed. (London, UK: T&T Clark, 2015), 32–69. Hurtado traces the ideological history of the divinity of Jesus and of binitarianism, emphasizing two persons and one essence in a middle form between monotheism and trinitarianism, in the thought of Jewish Memra-Logos and two powers of heaven. 383 Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 5–6. Around early second century CE, many Jews of cultural and religious groups might have recognized the heretical ideas, based on the idea of two powers of heaven. It can be inferred that there was an atmosphere of tacit acceptance of this idea without difficulty, but until the religious and theological controversy materialized.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

135

later perceived the idea of two powers in heaven as one of the earlier categories of heresy as a new phenomenon of Christian and Gnostic circles.384 As Niehoff notes, the comments of rabbinic scholars on the minim, which presumably referred to Christians, reflect a clear difference between rabbinic Judaism and the emerging context of early Christianity.385 As Boyarin also notes, the Rabbis gradually repudiated the Logos theology itself due to the heretical elements of the idea of two powers in heaven as one of the categories of heresy from their orthodoxy, while making a differentiation between rabbinic Judaism and its ideology and Christological doctrine.386 It can also be inferred that the Rabbis conspicuously censored various hypostatic notions, such as memra, personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, which contain subtle theological dangers.387 384 Heinrich Graetz, Gnosticismus und Judenthum (Krotoschin: B. L. Monasch, 1846; repr., Farnborough, Hampshire: Gregg International Publishers, 1971). Graetz notes that the Rabbis criticized the doctrine of two powers in heaven, based on Gnostic dualism, while identifying the minim with Gnostics. 385 Maren R. Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in light of Christian Exegesis,” HTR 99.1 (2006): 38–39. As Niehoff pointed out, in addition to the idea of two powers of heaven, the debates of heresy of the minim and minut appear as part of the response to Christian doctrines. She points out that it is necessary to trace the followers of Jesus’ origin in Jewish traditions, since the new movement involved them for its own purposes, which were deeply related to the subject of exemption from the laws as part of the identity of Christianity mentioned in the writings of Paul. This context might have caused the emergence of orthodox Christian identity, and at the same time, intensified its position in response to Jews and rabbinic Judaism. The parting of the main bodies of Christianity and Judaism appears to occur after the second revolt of Bar Kokhba 132–135 CE. In this context, the centrality of Logos theology in Christianity is one of the clearest symbols of the theological separation between them. These different manners in which early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism understood the Logos led to the construction of borders between the two religions, which had not previously existed, but were now decisively constructed. Even though Judaism and Christianity were vague in defining the entities, we can infer, from the earliest stages of their parallel intellectual development regarding the subject of the Logos, that theological conflicts and respective developments on the subject of Logos had a great influence on the split-up between Christianity and Judaism. The collection of laws and narratives about minut in the discourse of heresiology of the Rabbis, which is related to the idea of two powers in heaven, may be in part of a response to Christianity, rather than about Christianity. See Boyarin, Border Lines, 133–41, 167–71, 192–96, 200. 386 Boyarin, Border Lines, 131–32; Charles K. Barrett, “Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius,” in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honor of W. D. Davies (Leiden: Brill, 1976), 223. Interestingly, the critical shifts can be observed within rabbinic texts dating between the earlier Palestinian and the later Babylonian Talmuds. 387 It shows that the Rabbis also tried to explain the biblical, philosophical, and theological issues manifest in the context of creation, such as the hypostatization and personification of Torah against the backdrop of the cases of Wisdom and Logos in late midrash. If the

136

Chapter 1

Interestingly, we can also see that the binitarianism of a traditional Jewish Logos theology appears to be generally similar to the doctrine of Modalism, which was regarded as one of the Christian heresies.388 In this sense, the Nicaean Orthodoxy rejected its dualistic features because of the danger of Modalism by emphasizing the unique doctrines of Incarnate Logos theology and the Trinity whereas the Rabbis excluded a theological danger of binitarianism, which values the divine status of the ‘second God’.389 It shows that the idea of two powers in heaven, which is similar to the concept of Incarnate Logos as a radical form of Christology, was eventually rejected by the theological debates even within early Christian orthodoxy. However, unlike the Rabbis, Nicene orthodoxy, which emerged as Christian orthodoxy, accepted Logos theology and the Logos as a divine intermediary.390 As a result, the traditional concepts of the Memra-Logos as divine intermediaries, including the idea of two powers in heaven, were removed from the center of rabbinic Judaism in contrast to earlier Hellenistic and Palestinian Jewish traditions.391 Nonetheless, it is necessary to note that even though the Rabbis, who adhered to monotheism and divine transcendence, rejected these heretical ideas (i.e., Memra-Logos theology), the concepts and images of various hypostatic notions were greatly developed in different (Jewish philosophical and mystical) traditions which Rabbis and early targum translators (around late first and early second centuries) were already aware of the theological issues, such as Philo’s Logos as the concept of the ‘second God’ and the idea of two powers in heaven, around the first and second centuries CE, the position of some scholars, such as Moore, that the use and meaning of memra is only used for a literary euphemism is less convincing. See also Hayward, Divine Name and Presence: The Memra, 69. 388 Ibid.; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God,” in Christianity in Jewish Terms, ed. Tikva S. Frymer-Kensky (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000), 241. Modalism understands Jesus as just an aspect of the one God, while attempting to hold the opinion that considers Incarnate Logos as Jesus and God as separate persons. 389 Segal, Two Powers, 33–57; Boyarin, Border Lines, 129–36. Modalism, which understands Incarnate Logos as another form of God, appears to be compatible with a rabbinic doctrine and tendency that tolerates various literary expressions of God. However, there is a clear difference, when it comes to Incarnate Logos, between the Rabbis’ rejection of the dualistic doctrine of two powers of heaven and the Nicene Orthodoxy’s rejection of the modalistic doctrine. Scholars, such as Niehoff and Dunn, believe that the theological and hermeneutic differences and conflicts between early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism over the Memra-Logos theology and binitarianism accelerated the separation of the two religions. Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo,” 38–39; Dunn, The Partings of the Ways Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity (London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991), 135–36; Boyarin, Border Lines, 133–41, 167–71, 192–96, 200. 390 Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 33–57. 391 Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 219. See also Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 5–6.

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

137

maintained close ties with rabbinic Judaism, and later in late ancient and medieval philosophical and mystic literature.392 The foregoing analysis implies that the Jewish idea of two powers in heaven is profoundly associated with the concepts of various hypostatic notions, such as memra and shekhinah, and it played a critical role in characterizing the major difference between orthodox Christianity and rabbinic Judaism, and in the theological development of the Jewish and Christian Logos theology and Christology. On the one hand, the critical point is that the Rabbis remained active in the discourse of the Jewish Memra-Logos theology, which demonstrates a profound theological dialogue with early Christian traditions. It also alludes to the fact that the Rabbis had critical ideological conflicts and interactions with ancient Jewish philosophers and mystics as well as Church Fathers, which can be seen in their responses towards various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah. On the other hand, it can be inferred that the Evangelist tried to engage in apologetics about the Christological doctrine regarding the humanity and divinity of Jesus while investigating the Memra-Logos thought and its theological issues. This explains not only how the images of various hypostatic notions in their relationships with God were formulated and developed into the Trinitarian doctrine in early Christian traditions, but also how the Memra-Logos theology, which combines Jewish exegetical tradition and Greek philosophical thought, were developed by their profound interactions into various Christological ideas, such as angelomorphic Christology and Wisdom Christology. Specifically, this examination illustrates a theological conflict regarding their relationship with God in accordance with the distinction and proximity between various hypostatic notions and God: 1) Memra-Logos appears as the image of an angelic mediator in place of and independent of God through a hermeneutic strategy of allegory; 2) Memra-Logos appears as the image of a hypostatic mediator which is identical to God through the hermeneutic strategy of symbolism. Based on this theory, which presupposes a tension and interaction between the images of various hypostatic notions and God, the image of memra in the targums, associated with the concept of an angelic mediator, appears to be distinct and separate from God, whereas the 392 Stroumsa and Scholem argue that hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, personified Wisdom, memra and shekhinah in the Wisdom literature and rabbinic and targumic literature were linked to the philosophical and mystical concepts of Torah and had a great impact on early Christian Logos and Wisdom theology and later were greatly developed into various hypostatic notions, such as Metatron and sefirot, in late antique Jewish mystical (Enochic, Hekhalot, and Merkavah) and kabbalistic literature. Gedaliahu G. Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ,” HTR 76.3 (1983): 269–88; Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 41–69.

138

Chapter 1

image of memra, associated with the concept of a hypostatic mediator, also appears to be identified with God. This corroborates that the angelic images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah clearly appear when the distinction from God is emphasized, whereas their divine-like images appear when the proximity to God is emphasized. In summary, the angelic and divine-like images appear proportionally according to the degree of the relationship (i.e., distinction and identification) between God and the hypostatic mediators. This substantiates that the angelic mediators, who allegorically reveal the nature and works of God, show its distinction from God, whereas hypostatic mediators, who symbolically project the essence of God such as the Tetragrammaton, show the proximity and identification between the hypostatic notions and God. In all, this examination elucidates not only a theological intention and a sophisticated hermeneutic strategy, which formulates the angelic and divine-like images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, but also the formative process of the Trinitarian doctrine regarding the natures of Incarnate Jesus in the Johannine Logos (Jn 1:1–14). In summary, this examination demonstrates that the idea of two powers of heaven, based on the Logos-Memra theology, eventually led to the debates surrounding theological concepts, such as binitarianism and Trinitarinism, in accordance with the different approaches to the images (angelic, God-like, and messianic) of various hypostatic notions manifest in the history of Jewish and Christian thought. It shows not only how Jewish and Christian scholars in the first and second centuries CE understood and expressed various hypostatic notions but also how they formulated their images in relation to God through their theological intentions and hermeneutical strategies. It shows, moreover, that there were inherent theological and hermeneutic issues surrounding the angelic and divine-like concepts and images of various hypostatic notions as well as regarding the theological and religious controversies that existed between multifaceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity in the first and second centuries CE. Specifically, it explicates that the various hypostatic notions, which function as a critical apparatus for preparing the way moving from the pre-existent Logos towards Incarnate Jesus, were later radically developed into the Trinitarian doctrine. In addition, it provides a critical insight not only into the history of ideas regarding the interaction and separation between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity but also inner or theological conflicts (i.e., the distinction and proximity between God and Incarnate Jesus and a conflict between low Christology and high Christology) and external conflicts (i.e., social, political conflicts between

Hypostatic Notions Linked to the Concept of Torah

139

the Johannine and Jewish communities).393 Consequently, this examination suggests the necessity of an in-depth phenomenological examination of the authors’ theological intentions regarding and hermeneutic strategies for formulating the concepts and images of hypostatic mediators in the history of ancient Jewish and Christian thought. On the basis of this examination and its critical findings, I will expand my argument on the three images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, including a messianic image, while focusing on the dualistic conception of the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. 393 This also explains a theological tension between low Christology, which starts with the human Jesus as a messiah who is later being elevated to the Son of God, and supposes a separation from God, and high Christology, which starts with the preexistent Logos that is later being elevated to the ‘second God’ and emphasizes the proximity to God through its hypostatic and divine-like images.

Chapter 2

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity and Multifaceted Judaism The preceding examination shows that the centrality of Torah plays a critical role in regulating the dynamic (intertextual and theological) interactions and development of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah. It further demonstrates the existence and development of the Greek Logos-centered and Jewish Wisdom-centered traditions. Against this backdrop, in this chapter, we will consider the way the primitive forms of the three images (angelic, God-like, and messianic) of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah function as a systematic leverage in maintaining the balance between the two different traditions. I first will analyze in detail the primitive forms of the three images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, which appear in the Logos-centered and the Wisdom-centered traditions. 1

Torah, the Foundation of Jesus as Personified Wisdom and Incarnate Logos

In order to understand the theological foundation of the hypostatic notion of Torah and the accompanying three images of Torah, I will analyze the case of Jesus as a derivative form of Torah, which appears both as Incarnate Logos in the Fourth Gospel as part of the Logos-centered tradition and as personified Wisdom in the Synoptics as part of the Wisdom-centered tradition. Prior to undertaking this analysis, I offer a brief reminder of the previous examinations of the intertextual and theological relationships of the hypostatic notions of Torah, which are manifest in the Wisdom literature, starting with a summary of the intertextual nexus of Wisdom (‫ )חכמה‬and Torah (‫)תורה‬. These texts show a particular textual strategy of using Wisdom and Torah (‫תורת‬, sometimes replaced with ‫ חוק‬or ‫ )מוסר‬simultaneously within one paragraph. This strategy shows that personified Wisdom is identified with Torah.1 The Hebrew terms, ‫“ תורה‬teaching or instruction,” ‫“ דבר‬word,” ‫“ חכמה‬wisdom,” 1 Wisdom in the stories of Exodus in Wis 11–19 does not appear to be directly connected to the Torah in covenantal and sapiential traditions in Sirach. Similar instances of a combination of Wisdom and Torah also appear in 1 Bar. 3:9–4:4, and Ps 1 and 119.

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_004

‫‪141‬‬

‫‪The Images of Torah in Early Christianity‬‬ ‫‪Intertextual evidence of Wisdom and Torah in the MT (Masoratic Text) and LXXa‬‬

‫‪Dt 4:5–8‬‬

‫‪Dt 33:4‬‬ ‫‪Prov 1:2, 8‬‬ ‫‪LXX Sir 1:1‬‬

‫‪Sir 24:1‬‬ ‫‪23–26b‬‬

‫‪Sir 16:2‬‬ ‫‪18:6‬‬ ‫‪LXX Sir 24:23‬‬ ‫‪Ps 154:3,‬‬ ‫‪10–13‬‬ ‫)‪(= 11QPsa 18‬‬

‫ ‪Table 12‬‬

‫בה ָא ֶרץ‪ֲ ,‬א ֶׁשר‬ ‫ֹלהי‪ַ :‬ל ֲעׂשֹות ֵּכן ְּב ֶק ֶר ָ‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ִטים‪ַּ ,‬כ ֲא ֶׁשר ִצּוַ נִ י יְ הוָ ה ֱא ָ‬ ‫ה ְר ֵאה ִל ַּמ ְד ִּתי ֶא ְת ֶכם‪ֻ ,‬ח ִּקים ִ‬ ‫ַא ֶּתם ָּב ִאים ָׁש ָּמה ְל ִר ְׁש ָּתּה‬ ‫ל־ה ֻח ִּקים‬ ‫ּובינַ ְת ֶכם‪ְ ,‬ל ֵעינֵ י ָה ַע ִּמים‪ֲ :‬א ֶׁשר יִ ְׁש ְמעּון‪ֵ ,‬את ָּכ ַ‬ ‫יתם ִּכי ִהוא ָח ְכ ַמ ְת ֶכם ִ‬ ‫ּוׁש ַמ ְר ֶּתם‪ ,‬וַ ֲע ִׂש ֶ‬ ‫ו ְ‬ ‫ם־ח ָכם וְ נָ בֹון‪ַ ,‬הּגֹוי ַהּגָ דֹול ַהּזֶ ה‬ ‫ָה ֵא ֶּלה‪ ,‬וְ ָא ְמרּו ַרק ַע ָ‬ ‫ל־ק ְר ֵאנּו ֵא ָליו‪.‬‬ ‫ֹלהינּו‪ְּ ,‬ב ָכ ָ‬ ‫ֹלהים ְקר ִֹבים ֵא ָליו‪ַּ ,‬כיהוָ ה ֱא ֵ‬ ‫ז ִּכי ִמי־גֹוי ּגָ דֹול‪ֲ ,‬א ֶׁשר־לֹו ֱא ִ‬ ‫יכם‬ ‫ּתֹורה ַהּזֹאת‪ֲ ,‬א ֶׁשר ָאנ ִֹכי נ ֵֹתן ִל ְפנֵ ֶ‬ ‫יקם‪ְּ ,‬ככֹל ַה ָ‬ ‫ּומ ְׁש ָּפ ִטים ַצ ִּד ִ‬ ‫ּומי ּגֹוי ּגָ דֹול‪ֲ ,‬א ֶׁשר־לֹו ֻח ִּקים ִ‬ ‫ח ִ‬ ‫ַהּיֹום‬ ‫מֹור ָׁשה‪ְ ,‬ק ִה ַּלת יַ ֲעקֹב‬ ‫ה־לנּו‪ ,‬מ ֶֹׁשה‪ָ :‬‬ ‫ּתֹורה ִצּוָ ָ‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ּומּוסר; ְל ָה ִבין‪ִ ,‬א ְמ ֵרי ִבינָ ה‪.‬‬ ‫ָ‬ ‫ב ָל ַד ַעת ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ‫ּתֹורת ִא ֶּמָך‪.‬‬ ‫ל־ּתּטֹׁש‪ַ ,‬‬ ‫מּוסר ָא ִביָך; וְ ַא ִ‬ ‫ח ְׁש ַמע ְּבנִ י‪ַ ,‬‬

‫᾿‪ΠΟΛΛΩΝ καὶ μεγάλων ἡμῖν διὰ τοῦ νόμου καὶ τῶν προφητῶν καὶ τῶν ἄλλων τῶν κατ‬‬ ‫‪αὐτοὺς ἠκολουθηκότων δεδομένων, ὑπὲρ ὧν δέον ἐστὶν ἐπαινεῖν τὸν Ἰσραὴλ παιδείας‬‬ ‫‪καὶ σοφίας‬‬

‫א החכמה תהלל נפשה ובקרב עם אלהים תתפאר‬ ‫כג כל אלה בספר ברית יי כתובים‬ ‫תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה קהלת יעקב‬ ‫כה מלאה חכמה כפישון וכנהר חדקל בימי האביב‬ ‫כו לא גמרי קדמונים החכמה ואחרונים לא ישגוה‬ ‫ב על־עזבנו התורה יוכיחנו‪ ,‬ודרכנו דרך חטאים יקרא‬ ‫ה יען כי־כלאו בניך‪ ,‬אשר על־ידם תינתן התורה לאות עולם‬

‫‪ταῦτα πάντα βίβλος διαθήκης Θεοῦ Ὑψίστου, νόμον ὃν ἐνετείλατο ἡμῖν Μωυσῆς‬‬ ‫‪κληρονομίαν συναγωγαῖς ᾿ Ιακώβ.‬‬

‫ג לכול פותאים כי להודיע כבוד יהוה נתנה חוכמה ולספל‬ ‫י צדיקים מפתחי צדיקים נשמע קולה ומקהל חסידים‬ ‫יא זמרתה על אוכלםה בשבע נאמרה ועל שתותמה בחבר‬ ‫יב יחדיו שיחתם בתורת עליון אמריהמה להודיע עוזו‬ ‫יג כמה רחקה מרשעים אמרה מכול זדים לדעתה הנה‬

‫‪LXX Wis 9:1‬‬

‫‪ΘΕΕ πατέρων καὶ Κύριε τοῦ ἐλέους ὁ ποιήσας τὰ πάντα ἐν λόγῳ σου‬‬

‫‪Wis 6:4‬‬

‫‪οὐδὲ ἐφυλάξατε νόμον, οὐδὲ κατὰ τὴν βουλὴν τοῦ Θεοῦ ἐπορεύθητε.‬‬

‫)‪Wis 6:17 (18‬‬

‫‪ἀρχὴ γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀληθεστάτη παιδείας ἐπιθυμία,‬‬ ‫‪φροντὶς δὲ παιδείας ἀγάπη‬‬

‫א אנא ה׳ אלוהי אבותי‪ ,‬אל החסד והרחמים‪ ,‬אשר בדברך הכל כוננת‬ ‫ד ומחוקקי אוון כולכם‪ ,‬ואת־חוקי אלוהים לא נצרתם‬

‫יח ראשית חכמה אהבת מוסר‪ ,‬ותוצאות מוסר חסד‬

‫‪a I have not provided the translations of these texts here, as I have provided them in the previous analysis.‬‬ ‫‪b Patrick W. Skehan, “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24,” CBQ 41 (3) (1979): 374. This‬‬ ‫‪text (Sir 24) is a modern reconstruction in Hebrew.‬‬

142

Chapter 2

and ‫ חוק‬or ‫“ מוסר‬law or discipline,” all appear to be interchangeable with the Greek terms logos and nomos, as is seen in the use of words “law” νόμον (Sir 24:23; Wis 6:4), “your word” λόγῳ σου (Wis 9:1), and “instruction” παιδείας (Wis 6:17) in Wisdom literature, such as Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon.2 Specifically, the equivalence of Wisdom and Torah in Deuteronomy and Sirach is apparent and impressive. As Brooke notes, the association between Wisdom and Torah (Law), especially in Sir 24, is profoundly related to the personification and hypostatization of Wisdom and Torah from a literary and exegetical perspective.3 This textual combination and conceptual interaction between Torah and Wisdom is the basis for their intertextual and theological relationship in the later Jewish wisdom traditions, as I have shown earlier. As Dieter Georgi notes, “Jewish Apologists took the practical consequences of the universal aspects of Jewish wisdom [using the same] dialectic between universalism and particularity as the Hellenistic culture around them.”4 There was thus a continuous theological and philosophical interaction between Judaism and Hellenism, i.e., a process of conceptual combination between Torah and personified Wisdom within the Wisdom literature, such as Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and Philo’s works.5 This shows that the scope and impact of the later Jewish wisdom materials was extensive. Indeed, there is an undeniable consensus that the conceptual significance of Torah, garbed as it was in Jewish Wisdom and Greek Logos, was gradually increased in rabbinic6 and even in early Christian traditions. 2 The terms λόγος and νομός appear to be parallel to Torah within Jewish midrash. See Eldon J. Epp, “Wisdom, Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students, ed. Gerald F. Hawthorne (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975), 133–36. Epp also notes that Tannaitic and Amoraic literature contain considerable examples of the identification between personified Wisdom in Prov 8 and the Torah (e.g., Gen. Rab. xvii, 5, xxxi, 5. xliv, 17; Lev. Rab. xi, 3; Pesiq. Rab. xx, 1 [170a]). 3 Brooke, “Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom Texts from Qumran,” 219; Sinnott, The Personification of Wisdom, 137–38. Cécile Dogniez notes that the Wisdom in the LXX of Prov 8 and 9 is systematically personified and contains the stylistic traits of the Hebrew (Masoretic) text. Specifically, the LXX makes Wisdom a divine female figure through the literary use of the device of the personification, in keeping with the Hebrew text, while maintaining its separation from the transcendence of God, who alone creates the world (Prov 8:25–27). See Cécile Dogniez, “La personnification de la sagesse dans la LXX des Proverbes” in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, ed. Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez (Leuven: Peeters, 2021), 107–23. 4 Dieter Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986), 337. 5 Friedrich V. Reiterer, “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira,” 224–28. 6 See Gen. Rab. i, 1–10.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

143

On the one hand, despite the prominent influences of various contemporary hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom and Logos in the Jewish wisdom traditions, as Urbach and Davies discuss, the centrality and priority of Torah over these other hypostatic notions is apparent in rabbinic Judaism.7 As Maren R. Niehoff argued, regarding the rabbinic theology of creatio ex nihilo in Gen. Rab. i, 1–8 (with features of interpretations of Prov 8:22–31), R. Hoshaiah’s exegetical notes show specific evidence of the Christological debates between the Rabbis (Palestinian Amoraim) and Church Fathers, such as Origen, over the relative importance of hypostatic nature and pre-existence of Logos (Word) and Wisdom as compared to the conceptual priority of Torah.8 On the other hand, it is also notable that a cross-fertilization of the various hypostatic notions manifested in the late sapiential materials of the Jewish wisdom traditions also emerge in the early Christian sources, which were written contemporaneously (i.e., before and after the age of Jesus).9 The frequent presence, in the Wisdom literature, of personified Wisdom, understood as Torah, has critical implications for the concepts and images of Philo’ Logos as well as the Johannine Logos (i.e., Incarnate Jesus) in early Christian sources, including the NT.10

7

According to Urbach, in The Sages, 198–99, “The remnants of the Wisdom myth referring to Wisdom’s preexistence and its presence at the creation of the world, found in Proverbs (viii 22 ff), were transferred to the Torah, and it was said that it existed before the creation of the world, while R. Eliezer b. Zadok and R. Akiba spoke of the Torah as ‘an instrument wherewith the world was created, although this myth militates against the doctrine of Revelation.” Cf. Davies, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 170–72; Epp, “Wisdom, Torah, Word,” 133–36. Tannaitic literature, which is dated to the first and second centuries CE, also contains the identifications and depictions of personified Wisdom in Prov 8 with Torah. Ringgren, in Word and Wisdom Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East, 123, emphasizes that “personified Torah replaces personified Wisdom in rabbinic tradition.” 8 Maren R. Niehoff, “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in light of Christian Exegesis,” HTR 99.1 (2006): 37–64; idem, “Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah,” in Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context, ed. Sarit K. Gribetz, David M. Grossberg, Martha Himmelfarb, and Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016): 129–53; Origen, Princ. 1.2 Christ: 1.2.2 (Wisdom); 1.2.3 (Logos, Word). See John Behr, Origen: On First Principles (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 41–43. Also see Philip Alexander, “‘In the Beginning’: Rabbinic and Patristic Exegesis of Genesis 1:1,” in The Exegetical Encounter between Jews and Christians in Late Antiquity (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 1–29; Maurice Dowling, “Proverbs 8: 22–31 in the Christology of the Early Fathers,” Perichoresis 8.1 (2010): 47–65. 9 Ben Witherington, Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994), 381. 10 Witherington, 381–82.

144

Chapter 2

It is crucial to note that Philo’s Logos shows explicit evidence of the harmonization between the Hellenistic Greek Logos and the Palestinian Jewish tradition of Wisdom understood as Torah (or the Word of God). Philo’s conception of the image of the Logos in relation to the Image of God (Gen 1:27) in Leg. III. xxxi, 96 and Conf. xxviii, 147 provides a critical insight into the term “image” of Torah, which I examine in this study.11 In order to discover the profound relationships between the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, I briefly discuss Philo’s conception of the images of the Logos in relation to Wisdom and Torah. Philo specifically transforms the Platonic term “image,” which is usually employed with reference to patterns of things in the visible world, into a term and concept which can describe the “ideas” and the Logos (Leg. I. xiii; xxxiii; III. xxxi; xcvi, 96; Somn. II. vi., xlv.).12 In this vein, as Wolfson notes, the “image” of God conveys a dualistic conception: not only is it a “corporeal” or “visible” image, but it is also an “incorporeal” or “invisible” image.13 Both of these conceptions meaningfully appear in the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. The Logos, as the Image of God, has a significant implication for the concept and image of Torah (i.e., the Laws of Moses) in the sense of the divine Word (i.e., the Word of God).14 As examined earlier, Philo’s Logos is explicitly related to the “word” in the Septuagint (e.g., Ps 33(32):6; Ps 147: 4[15], 7[18]) and is explicitly identified with the Word of God in the Wisdom literature, such as Wisdom of Solomon (e.g., Wis 9:1–2).15 Philo’s Logos thereby appears to be identified with the revealed Law (e.g., Leg. III. xv, 46) and eventually with the Torah as a hypostatic notion (e.g., Sir 24:23). In particular, Philo’s Logos, which is equivalent to the revealed Law, appears as an immanent being in the world.16 By 11 Wolfson, Philo, 1:237–40. A dualistic conception of the Logos appears in his homily on Gen 2:8, which explicates the creation of man “in the shadow of God,” i.e., after the Image of God. 12 Ibid. The term “image” is still applied in a Platonic sense to the “patterns” of things in the visible world (e.g., Opif. vi, 25; Plant. xii. 50; Ebr. xxxiii, 13–133). However, Philo, in QG I. 4 and 8, clarifies that the “image” is described not only as the “idea” of man created in His Image prior to the creation of the “sense-perceptible” man but also as the Logos of God as the “first principle” and the intelligible and incorporeal “form.” 13 Ibid. This dualistic concept of the images of the Logos is manifest in the writings of Church Fathers, such as Origen, Princ. 1.2.3 and 1.2.6 (Behr, 2017:47–48). 14 Wolfson, Philo, 1:230–31; 253–61. 15 Ibid. As Wolfson notes, Philo uses the term Logos to refer to the word of God in Scripture as the source of the creation of the world (Ps 33:6), the governing of the world (Ps 147:18), and of prophecy and revelation (Isa 2:1; Jer 1:2). 16 Ibid. 332–33; 327–28. Philo describes the immanent Logos of the visible world through the symbolism of the High Priest, who is identified with a divine Word, i.e., the Logos. Cf. Philo, Fug. xx, 110.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

145

contrast, Wisdom, mainly depicted as an incorporeal and transcendent being, in the sense of Nous (i.e., the divine or incorporeal mind), appears equivalent to the preexistent Law (i.e., preexistent Torah).17 Both Logos and Wisdom signify a property of God, identical with His essence, eternal and incorruptible.18 However, the concept and image of Wisdom, in Leg. I. xix, 65 and II. xxi–xxii, and Ebr. viii, 31, appears in an eternal and incorporeal sense closer to God than the Logos and the Word of God.19 Specifically, Philo’s exegesis in Gen 1:26 and 2:7 shows God’s creation of man in cooperation with Wisdom as a hypostatic entity.20 This shows that unlike the son-like image of Logos connected to the revealed Law (or Torah), the image of Logos connected to Wisdom appears as a God-like image related to the preexistent Law (or Torah), which is eventually convergent with the image of Torah. By this logic, this dual conception of Philo’s Logos substantiates a dualistic conception of Torah, which plays a central role in balancing the concepts of Wisdom and Logos. Philo’s Logos had a substantial impact on the Johannine Logos, and early Logos Christology.21 As Edwards notes, the Johannine Logos indeed appears to be identified with the preexistent Torah of Gen. Rab. i, 1, which is identical to personified Wisdom, who is in

17 18

Ibid., 325. Ibid., 225, 253–61. Philo uses the term Wisdom in the senses of eternality and God’s own wisdom, as a property of God prior to the creation of the world. Cf. Leg. II. xxi, 86: “The flinty rock is the wisdom of God, which He marked off highest and chiefest from His powers, and from which He satisfies the thirsty souls that love God.” 19 Indeed, Philo also interprets ‫( קָ֭ נָ נִ י‬Prov 8:22) in a “not-created” or “acquired (or obtained)” sense in Ebr. viii, 31, which I will elaborates on in detail below. 20 Fossum discusses the connections of rabbinic literature with Philonic, Gnostic, and Samaritan literature. Fossum, “Gen. 1, 26 and 2, 7 in Judaism, Samaritanism, and Gnosticism,” 202–39. In Gen. Rab. viii, 5, 8 the Rabbis elaborate the idea that Wisdom, identified as Torah, was the demiurgic agent of God in creation. However, in early midrashic literature, such as Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Pisḥa 14:64, shows that early Rabbis censored Philo’s heretical explanations regarding Gen 1:26–27 since around the third century BCE. The demiurgical activities of the hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom, also appear in the descriptions of Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels and New Testament texts (e.g., Jn 1:1; Heb 1:2). Cf. Gen. Rab. viii, 9; Rodolphe Kasser et al. (eds. and trans.), Tractatus Tripartitus (Francke, Verlag: Bern, 1973–1975), Pars 1. De supernis, 48, 50. 21 As examined earlier, it is evident that Jewish Palestinian culture was gradually integrated into and was deeply influenced by the Hellenistic ways of life, thought and expressions over the last three centuries BCE. It appears that religious and cultural influences from the Greco-Roman environment had a huge impact upon the formative process of the Christian Logos theology. This point shows that the Johannine Logos was derived from influences within Hellenistic Judaism, which were, in turn, influenced by middle-Platonism through Philo’s Logos.

146

Chapter 2

the bosom of the Father in Prov 8.22 This elucidates that the Johannine Logos appears as a combined and crystalized product of the Jewish wisdom traditions that developed within multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenized, and rabbinic) Judaism and the Logos theology that developed under the Hellenistic philosophical influences.23 This also authenticates that the unique Johannine Logos was formulated in a gradual (exegetical and hermeneutical) process from the pre-existent Logos to Incarnate Logos, and in a shifting form from a Hellenistic and Jewish Logos-Wisdom theology to Christology. 22 23

Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” 262. The Rabbis’ argument regarding the preexistence of Torah in Gen. Rab., based on the exegesis of personified Wisdom in Prov 8, explicitly reflects the Christological controversies in Palestine regarding the preexistence of Wisdom and Incarnate Logos, Jesus as the Son of God, manifest in the Johannine Prologue and the works of Church Fathers, such as Origen. Robert G. T. Edwards, “Proverbs 8, Christological Controversies, and the Pre-existence of the Son and Torah in the Third and Fourth Centuries,” JSJ 51.1 (2020): 67–96. Yair Furstenberg, “The Rabbinic Ban on maʿaseh bereshit: Sources, Context, and Concerns,” in Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity, ed. Lance Jenott and Sarit K. Gribetz (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 39–63. As scholars, such as Martha Himmelfarb, note, the apparent knowledge of the Rabbis (e.g., Gen. Rab. i, 1–8) of various hypostatic notions regarding the Christological and messianic ideas reflects the historical and exegetical backgrounds of the intense controversies between the Palestinian Amoraim and the Caesarean church fathers around the third and fourth centuries. See Martha Himmelfarb, “Abraham and the Messianism of Genesis Rabbah,” In Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context, ed. Sarit K. Gribetz, David M. Grossberg, and Peter Schäfer (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016), 99–111. In the Tannaitic (talmudic and midrashic) sources, such as m. Pirkei ʾAvot 6:6, Mek. d’R. Ishmael, xv, 16:3, Sifre to Deuteronomy 37, 3: B, “Torah, the most beloved [of all things], which takes precedence over everything else, was created first of all, for it is said, ‘The Lord made me as the beginning of his way, the first of his works of old. (Prov 8:22)’” See the translation in Neusner, 1:108. This passage shows that Torah not only reflects the ‘possession’ or ‘acquisition’ of God, rather than its preexistence, but also appears against the backdrop of a mystical speculation of Wisdom manifest in the Second Temple and Wisdom literature. In addition, it is conceivable that the Rabbis, throughout Gen. Rab. i, 1–8, responded to the exegetical and theological debates, such as those regarding the pre-existence of Torah, Son, and Messiah, raised by the Christian and gnostic circles about the interpretations of Prov 8:22–31. See Strack and Stemberger, Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash, 273; James F. McGrath, “Two Powers Heresy: Rethinking (and Redating) the Parting of the Ways between Jewish and Christian Monotheism,” in The Only True God: Early Christian Monotheism in Its Jewish Context (Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 2009), 81–96; Schäfer, “Bereshit bara elohim: Bereshit Rabba, parashah 1, Reconsidered,” In Empsychoi Logoi – Religious Innovations in Late Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter W. van der Horst, ed. Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magdalena W. Misset-van de Weg (Leiden: Brill, 2008), 267–89 (esp. 288). I hope to offer, in a separate study, a detailed analysis of the theological debates between the Rabbis and Church Fathers in late antiquity against the backdrop of the images of various hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

147

All of this demonstrates that the conceptual interactions of Wisdom and Torah in the later sapiential materials and even rabbinic sources had a huge impact on the Jesus tradition and Logos-Wisdom Christology under the Hellenistic influences.24 That is, the concepts and images of Torah, identified as Wisdom and Logos, were dynamically developed into an idiosyncratically theologized form of the Johannine Logos as Jesus within early Christian traditions. The profound interaction between the concepts and images of Wisdom and Logos further substantiates the centrality of Torah within the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah.25 2

Jesus in the Gospels as a Derivative Form of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah

On the basis of the previous examinations, I will analyze the case of Incarnate Logos as Jesus in the Gospels, who prominently appears as a derivative form of the hypostatic notions of Torah. I will examine not only the images and activities of Jesus as Incarnate Logos in the Fourth Gospel in the Logos-centered tradition but also those of Jesus as personified Wisdom in the Synoptic Gospels in the Wisdom-centered tradition. I will then compare them with other hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, memra and shekhinah while uncovering their intertextual and theological relationships and their developmental processes during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. 2.1 Jesus as Incarnate Logos in the Fourth Gospel As Goodenough notes, the concept of Logos and other variants, as a mediatorial figure, are not very widespread in the philosophical systems of first- or even second-century Judaism and Christianity.26 Bultmann and Ashton also point out the absence of the Greek sophia (or Logos) and its disconnectedness to the Logos in the Prologue, or the Johannine Epistles.27 These analyses are skeptical 24 25

See Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians, 337–38. See Dale C. Allison, The New Moses: A Matthean Typology (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993), 323; William D. Davies, “Reflections on the Spirit in the Mekilta: A Suggestion,” JANESCU 5 (1973): 95–105. 26 Goodenough, The Theology of Justin Martyr, 140–41. 27 Bultmann, The Gospel of John, 22–25. Bultmann emphasizes the origin of the Johannine Logos in the Gnostic myth rather than the Judaic Wisdom myth and the Stoic Logos, as noted in n. 190 (in Chapter 1), above. Ashton, in Understanding the Fourth Gospel, 124–59, also notes that the influences of the Hellenistic and rabbinic ideas on the Johannine Logos have been disputed for a long time in the history of biblical interpretation.

148

Chapter 2

not only regarding the relationship between Wisdom-Sophia in Hellenistic Jewish writings and the Christian Logos in early Christian writings but also regarding the relationship between personified Wisdom and Jesus in terms of their roles as agents in the creation. As examined earlier, a direct linguistic and grammatical nexus between the Johannine Logos and the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, is difficult to definitively demonstrate and remains controversial. Nonetheless, in my view, these scholars’ arguments do not appear to sufficiently offer an alternate and holistic interpretation that considers the intertextual, contextual, and theological dimensions regarding the conceptual development of the Johannine Logos as a hypostatic notion of Torah. As examined earlier, we can infer that the conceptual changes and various usages of Torah had a significant interaction with a Logos-centered tradition at the time of the Johannine community. These changes and usages provide critical insight into the shifting process by which personified Wisdom became the Johannine Logos against the backdrop of other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos and memra.28 It is notable that Philo’s work, which is earlier than the Fourth Gospel, appears critical for an examination of the Hellenistic influences on the Johannine Prologue.29 Philo’s Logos has a syncretic quality created, as it was, by his own exegetical methodology of combining both Jewish biblical exegesis and Greek philosophy under the influence of middle-Platonism.30 In Opif., Philo identifies the Logos with the Image of God, 28

Edwards, “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God,” 262. Although the personification of Torah might not have been a widespread phenomenon or exegetic practice as in rabbinic tradition, the conceptual changes of Torah cannot be ignored in the personification of Logos in relation to personified Wisdom, which appears in a Logos-centered tradition of the Johannine community. 29 Philo, Opif (De Opificio Mundi = On the Creation), i–xi, 1–40; xxiii–xxiv, 69–72. Philo’s Logos is crafted by his own exegetical methodology from Greek Hellenistic philosophy and Jewish biblical and wisdom traditions on Genesis. Despite the lack of professional philosophical languages in the Gospel of John, there are shared vocabularies and similar theological and philosophical languages with Philo’s works, such as λόγος “word,” φως “light,” and σκότος “darkness” as well as αλήθεια “truth” as follows: τὸ δὲ ἀόρατον νοητὸν φῶς ἐκεῖνο θείου λόγου γέγονεν “Now that invisible light perceptible only by mind had come into being as an image of the Divine Word”; μετὰ δὲ τὴν τοῦ νοητοῦ φωτὸς ἀνάλαμψιν, ὃ πρὸ ἡλίου γέγονεν, ὑπεχώρει τὸ ἀντίπαλον σκότος “After the kindling of the intelligible light, which preceded the sun’s creation, darkness its adversary withdraw.” Also see Philo, Somn. xiii, 72–76: ὁ θεὸς φῶς ἐστι, “God is light.” 30 Sterling, “When the Beginning Is the End,” 428–38. Philo’s works comprise three independent sets of commentaries on the Pentateuch, and extensive treatment of Genesis. Three sets are as follows: The Questions and Answers on Genesis and Exodus, The Allegorical Commentary, and Exposition of the Law. Philo’s Logos was a shared theological notion

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

149

mentioned in Gen 1:26–27, and Gen 2:7.31 He also identifies the Logos with an “instrument,” understood as a copy of a divine Image and the intelligible cosmos, which God used for the creation of the cosmos.32 He further identifies the Logos with the human mind and its rational thought, i.e., Reason.33 Following this logic, the Logos is involved with the ideal first man, who was “superior to all rational natures.”34 By this logic, the Logos is not only connected to an angelic agent who is comparable to the demiurge in Plato’s Timaeus, through which God created the world, but also to the revelatory apparatus of God.35 Philo thereby offers a way of identifying a profound relationship between God and the Logos, i.e., the Word of God, while ultimately connecting the Logos to the concepts of an angelic agent or even a “second God.”36 As noted earlier, Philo’s Logos is eventually connected to the images (son-like or father-like) of personified Wisdom under the mixed influences of Greek philosophy and the Jewish exegetical practices of personifying Wisdom in the Wisdom literature.37 This shows that Philo thereby creates a new way of interpreting the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom (personified Wisdom) under the rubric of Torah, and thereby creating of an angelic image of Torah.38 It is crucial to note that the dualistic concepts and images of Philo’s Logos plays a critical role in identifying the revealed Laws of Moses, i.e., Torah (Sir 24:23 f) and personified Wisdom (Prov 8:1–31; Wis 9:1–2). As Harry A. Wolfson notes, the affinity between the ideas of the Word of God and personified Wisdom (e.g., Jer 10:12; Prov 3:19; Ps 104:24) in the creation context, is eventually developed into the identification between Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom against the backdrop of the concept of Torah.39 In this vein, some NT scholars, such as Brown and James A. T. Robinson, also observe a similarity between the ways in which Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos are

31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39

around first-century Judaism, which is based on the middle-Platonic theological notions under the influence of Plato’s philosophy. Philo, Opif., xxiii–xxiv, 69–72; xlvi–li, 134–46. Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 55. Ibid., 44, 55. Philo, Opif. xlviii–xlix, 139–42; Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses, 344–45. Philo’s Logos appears to be different than the Platonic or Stoic Logos. Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 5–9, 48. The divine Logos is a separate being from God but simultaneously a part of God. Ibid., 43–44. The closeness between Logos and Torah, which is found in Philo’s cosmological descriptions, in the opening verses of Genesis, is basically grounded in an allegorical interpretation, associated with Jewish homiletic and midrashic practices. The Jewish hypostatic notions appear to be condensed and consolidated in Philo’s Logos. Wolfson, Philo, 1:255–58, 287 ff.

150

Chapter 2

grounded in the conceptual relationship between Torah and Wisdom in the Hebrew Bible and Wisdom literature, despite the lack of a direct linguistic and literary association between Philo’s writings and the Fourth Gospel.40 This shows that, beyond a mere philosophical sense, Philo’s Logos allows for the personification and hypostatization of the Wisdom and Torah of God through a synthesis of the literary, exegetical, and theological processes. Philo’s Logos, thus, offers a crucial basis and framework for the personification and incarnation of the Johannine Logos, as well as for the formulation of the images of the Johannine Logos and other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as memra and shekhinah, as examined earlier. 2.2 Jesus as Personified Wisdom in the Synoptics Under the consensus that the Synoptics are chronologically prior to the Fourth Gospel, we can infer that, like the Johannine Logos in the Fourth Gospel, the Jesus tradition in the Synoptics also was significantly influenced by the Hellenization of early Judaism.41 Indeed, the later sapiential materials’ impact on the Gospels appears to be even more evident in the Jesus tradition in the Synoptics. Specifically, we can find clear differences, in the images and activities, words and deeds, and parables and aphorisms, between Jesus as Incarnate Logos in the Fourth Gospel, and those of Jesus, as personified Wisdom in the Synoptics. Ben Witherington observes that John the Evangelist implicitly presents Wisdom as the “private teaching” of Jesus “for those who need further instruction,” whereas Matthew explicitly presents Wisdom as the “public teaching” of Jesus “for Christian teachers to use with outsiders or new converts.”42 The most important characteristic of Jesus’ teaching methods in the Gospels is the “parable,” which is translated as παραβολή in Greek in the NT and is also translated as mashal, ‫ משל‬in Hebrew in biblical and rabbinic literature. As Peder Borgen suggests, the Gospels including the Gospel of John, appear to have a literary and exegetical relationship with ancient midrashim in the Jewish wisdom traditions.43 Craig A. Evans makes a list of NT passages, especially regarding 40

Brown also notes that, in John I–XII, lvii–lviii, lxxxii–lxxxvi, the Evangelist’s use of Logos triggers a strong curiosity about whether or not Philo’s Logos is based on Johannine Logos. John A. T. Robinson tries to prove that the Prologue has a close nexus with first-century Palestinian realia. See Robinson, “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John,” 128. 41 As I pointed out in n. 189 (in Chapter 1), above, scholars such Bultmann and Brown date the Gospel of John as about 80–120 CE. 42 Witherington, 338. 43 Peder Borgen, “Observation on the Midrashic Character of John 6,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft 54 (1963): 232–40.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

151

the teachings and parables of Jesus, which include quotations from and allusions to parallels in the Hebrew Bible, the Qumran texts, and the Wisdom literature of the Second Temple period.44 Interestingly, Harvey K. McArthur and Robert M. Johnston analyze the close parallels between the parables of Jesus in the Gospels and rabbinic parables in the Tannaitic literature.45 For instance, the “wise and foolish maidens and servants” (Mt 25:1–13, Mt 24:45–51; Mt 22:1–10; Lk 12: 42–46; Lk 14:15–24) may be compared to the “wise and foolish servants” (b. Šabb. 153a; Qoh. Rab. 9:8). In addition, several scholars, such as David Flusser and Brad Young, examine the hermeneutical methodologies of the parables in Tannaitic and late midrashim, the Gospels, and other early-Christian sources, while examining the similarities and affinities between the rabbinic meshalim (‫)משלים‬and the parables of Jesus.46 These examinations shed light on the relationship of Jesus’ parables not only to early Jewish parables but also to a form of narrative meshalim that adopt the metaphorical and figurative speech of personified Wisdom.47 Specifically, Witherington notes that the majority of the Jesus tradition appears in “the form of some sort of Wisdom utterance, such as an aphorism, riddle, or parable.”48 Indeed, narrative meshalim that are similar to Jesus’ parables and aphorisms in the Synoptics can be found in the Hebrew Bible and in extra-canonical materials. They can be especially found especially in Jewish sapiential materials and traditions.49 At the same time, as Birger Gerhardsson emphasizes, it must be 44 Craig A. Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, ed. Baker Academic Paperback (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 342–417; 419–23. 45 Harvey K. McArthur, and Robert M. Johnston, They also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era (Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014). 46 David Flusser, Die Rabbinischen Gleichnisse Und Der Gleichniserzähler Jesus (Bern; Las Vegas: Lang, 1981), 40–43. David Flusser shows the affinity between the ‘classical’ rabbinic parables (an oral genre for a popular audience) and Jesus’ parables, while distinguishing the ‘classical’ rabbinic parables from ‘later’ rabbinic parables. However, Brad H. Young sees a positive association between Jesus’ parables and ‘late’ rabbinic parables while focusing on shared motifs and theology rather than focusing on their philological and literary features. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching (New York: Paulist Press, 1989). See also Teugels, The Meshalim in the Mekhiltot, 7–8, 29–33, 44–45. 47 Witherington, 205. 48 Ibid., 155–56; Rainer Riesner, Jesus Als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung Zum Ursprung Der Evangelien-Überlieferung (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981), 392–94. Riesner counts 247 meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels. 49 Birger Gerhardsson, “The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels: A Comparison with the Narrative Meshalim in the Old Testament,” NTS 34.3 (1988): 339–63; Brad H. Young, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998);

152

Chapter 2

acknowledged that there are critical ideological, stylistic, and thematic differences between the Synoptics and the Jewish materials.50 Brandon B. Scott and David Aune also highlight that the halakhic issues and the usages of aphorisms of personified Wisdom found in the Wisdom materials are lacking or absent in the Jesus tradition.51 However, despite the considerable differences, it cannot be denied that Jesus’ sayings, in the mainstream Jesus materials, appear to be profoundly grounded in various forms of Wisdom’s sayings in early Jewish wisdom sources and traditions.52 The textual evidence regarding their similarities implicitly appears in some passages of the Synoptics. Unlike a direct intertextual nexus between Jesus and personified Wisdom in the Fourth Gospel, as examined earlier, the Synoptics (e.g., Mt 11:19; Lk 24:44) alludes to indirect relationships and similarities between Jesus and personified Wisdom.53 As examined earlier, the speeches and activities of Jesus appear very similar to those of personified Wisdom. Specifically, Mt 11:28–30 implies that Jesus purposefully presented himself as a sage or teacher for all believers and audiences. Jesus presents himself as a Jewish prophetic sage of a sapiential mold (i.e., one who speaks is aphorisms, parables) very similar to the earlier Jewish sapiential traditions, such as those found in the book of Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon.54 In Jesus’ parables and aphorisms (e.g., Mt 12:42, and Lk 11:31), we can see an implicit identification of Jesus himself with personified Wisdom depicted as a sage in Raymond Pautrel, “Les canons du mashal rabbinique,” Recherches de Science Religieuse 28 (1938): 264–81; Jacob. J. Petuchowski, “The Theological Significance of the Parable in Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament,” Christian News from Israel 23.2 (10) (1972): 76–86. 50 Gerhardsson, “If We Do not Cut the Parables out of their Frames,” NTS 37.3 (1991): 329–32. 51 Bernard B. Scott, “Jesus as Sage: An Innovating Voice in Common Wisdom,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 407; David Aune, “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus,” in Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity: Collected Essays II (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013), 256–302. 52 Witherington, 382. 53 As Brown, in John I–XII, cxxii–cxv, notes, Jesus in the Fourth Gospel is explicitly portrayed with the traits of Woman Wisdom. 54 Ibid., 159. The images of Jesus in personified Wisdom can be gleaned from Sirach (e.g., Sir 24:7 ff) and Wisdom of Solomon (e.g., Wis 10:10: σοφία δὲ τοὺς θεραπεύοντας αὐτὴν ἐκ πόνων ἐρρύσατο. “Wisdom rescued from troubles those who served her.”; Wis 7:27: μία δὲ οὖσα πάντα δύναται καὶ μένουσα ἐν αὑτῇ τὰ πάντα καινίζει καὶ κατὰ γενεὰς εἰς ψυχὰς ὁσίας μεταβαίνουσα φίλους θεοῦ καὶ προφήτας κατασκευάζει. “Though she [Wisdom] is but one, Wisdom can do all things, and while remaining in herself, Wisdom renews all things; in every generation Wisdom passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets.”)

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

153

the book of Proverbs.55 In addition, the “teacher” and “father” images of Jesus similarly appear in personified Wisdom’s approach to “sons” and public audiences.56 This corroborates that Jesus saw himself as (personified) Wisdom and interpreted his mission in the light of earlier Wisdom poems and hymns.57 Furthermore, the images and activities of Jesus as a prophet appear similar to those of the mashal of personified Wisdom. A prophetic and eschatological message in Jesus’ approach to public audiences can be found in the literary form of meshalim.58 As Claus Westermann analyzed, the parables of Jesus adapted a prophetic and eschatological feature adapted from the narrative meshalim of personified Wisdom in the Jewish sapiential materials, such as Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Qumran texts.59 Pheme Perkins states that Jesus uses meshalim in order to give a new message and interpretation of the Torah to His people and to defend his prophetic vision of the Kingdom of

55 Mt 11:19b: καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς. “But wisdom is proved right by her actions.”; Mt 12:42; ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε. “for she came from the ends of the earth to hear the wisdom of Solomon, and behold, esomething greater than Solomon is here.”; Lk 11:31: ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε. “for she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.” (Adler, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, accessed Oct 28, 2020). Luke’s author seems to conclude that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom, who was characterized by the possession and employment of wisdom and was Wisdom itself. Unlike allusion to the self-identification of Jesus with personified Wisdom, the Rabbis, portrayed in rabbinic literature, do not directly appear to be connected to the personified Wisdom figure. But it is evident that the Rabbis generally appear to be portrayed as spiritual leaders who possesses wisdom and teach the secrets of the Torah through parables and symbols. It is also notable that in the medieval Jewish mystical tradition, the ideal character of the rabbinic sages seems to be implicitly related to the images of zaddikim, who appear as an anthropomorphic (masculine) mediator between human beings and God against the backdrop of the sefirot in the kabbalistic works of Abulafia and Gikatilla, which I will discuss later in this study. I hope to offer, in a separate study, a detailed analysis of the images of the Rabbis against the backdrop of the images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah. 56 Pheme Perkins, Jesus as Teacher (New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 44. 57 Witherington, 384. Insofar as Jesus identifies himself as a particular historical person, this involves a turn towards a historical particularism. This becomes a controversial issue. 58 Ibid., 202. 59 Claus Westermann, The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990), 201–2. Westermann also points out that “comparisons and parables” form an essential part of the Hebrew Bible and NT. “The function of comparisons and parables differs according to the context in which they are found and from which in turn they derive their function” (202).

154

Chapter 2

God.60 Specifically, as Witherington notes, the prophetic and eschatological features in their speeches not only reflect a lived socio-political context but also have two levels of metaphoric meaning: physical and spiritual, sight and insight, and darkness and light, and death and eternal life.61 This corroborates that the prophetic and eschatological aspects of the parables (i.e., meshalim) of both Jesus and personified Wisdom both aim to disclose the mystical aspects of the teachings of the Torah (i.e., the Laws of Moses).62 In all, this examination demonstrates that the parables of Jesus, understood against the backdrop of the meshalim of personified Wisdom, represent a combination of law, wisdom, prophecy, and eschatological vision.63 This also substantiates profound nexus between personified Wisdom and Jesus that emerges from the literary and hermeneutic strategies manifest in both the Jesus material and Jewish sapiential materials. One of the critical findings is that unlike the son-like and angelic images of Torah as Jesus in the Fourth Gospel in the Logos-centered tradition, the images and activities of Jesus as a sage or prophet in the Synoptics appear close to a God-like image of Torah in a Wisdom-centered tradition. 3

Three Images of Torah: Angelic, Messianic, and God-Like

On the basis of this above examination, I will analyze in detail the features and images of Jesus as Incarnate Logos and personified Wisdom in the Gospels (the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels), which mirrors the process of the conceptual changes of Torah based on the dynamic interactions of Wisdom and Logos. I will thereby substantiate my contention that Philo’s Logos is a bridge between personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31 and the Johannine Logos in Jn 1:1–18. Specifically, I now will delve into the features of the three images (angelic, God-like, and messianic) of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah by further elaborating and reevaluating the interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22–31 against the backdrop of the intertextual and theological relationships between the hypostatic notions of Torah, which were dynamically developed within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. I thereby will crystalize not 60 61 62 63

Perkins, Jesus as Teacher, 44. Witherington, 381. Ibid., 159–60. James Breech, and Amos N. Wilder, Jesus’ Parables and the War of Myths: Essays on Imagination in the Scripture (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982), 79.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

155

only the features of Jesus, as a derivative form of the hypostatic notions of Torah from the literary, exegetical, and theological allusions but also the existence of the three (angelic, God-like, and messianic) images of Torah, reflected in Jesus, which dynamically emerge within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions. 3.1 An Angelic Image of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah As discussed earlier, the interpretations of ‫( ָאמֹון‬i.e., personified Wisdom) in Prov 8:30 are at the basis of the relationships between personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos. On the basis of this discussion, I first will try to uncover an angelic image of the hypostatic notions of Torah by analyzing the images and activities of personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31 and of the Johannine Logos in the Prologue in Jn 1:1–18. It is notable that the concept of “son(s)” of God in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Gen 6:1–4), in some manuscripts of the Septuagint, and in the Qumran texts, and in Apocryphal sources are closely associated with the expressions of “angels.”64 We have seen that Philo’s Logos can serve as the representative of God, as an angelic being, i.e., “the intelligible cosmos,” which exists between God and the perceptible cosmos (including human beings).65 The Logos, as an angelic being, appears to be a “separate intellect” or “incorporeal soul,” which functions as a mediator between the Prime Cause and things existing in the world. It is crucial to note that, as Brant analyzes, Philo’s Logos is analogous to portrayals of personified Wisdom as a “heavenly agent” (i.e., angelic being) in Jewish wisdom literature, such as Proverbs, Sirach, and Wisdom of Solomon.66 As discussed earlier, Philo, in Opif. (= Creation), conceptualizes the “Image of God” in Gen 1:26–27 and 2:7 by elucidating the relationship between God and the Logos through the combination of scriptural and philosophical interpretations.67 Philo intellectualizes the biblical concept of the angels of God thereby transforming it into the philosophical concept of the Logos of God

64

The son(s) of God in the Hebrew Bible are also described as the righteous children of Seth, as just and pious men, and as the kings of Israel. Some manuscripts of the Septuagint, such as Codex Vaticanus, read “sons of God” of Genesis 6:1–4 as “angels.” The references of ‫( בני האלהים‬Job 1:6 and 2:1) in the Hebrew Bible are traditionally translated as “sons of God” in the Enochic literature, the Qumran texts [the Genesis Apocryphon, the Damascus Document, 4Q180 (= 4QAgesCreat)], 2 Baruch, and so forth. 65 Ibid. This assumes the identification of the image of God with the Logos under the influence of the Platonic tradition. 66 Brant, John, 26. 67 See Philo, Opif. i–xi, 1–40; xxiii–xxiv, 69–72; xlvi–li, 134–46.

156

Chapter 2

(ὁ θεού λόγos), which is eventually identified with the Word of God (i.e., Torah).68 More importantly, Philo explicates that the Logos is related to ideal first man, who is “superior to all rational natures,” on the basis of the equivalence of the Logos and Reason.69 Specifically, Philo’s conception of the Logos relates to the Greek term πρωτόγονος, instead of πρωτότοκος as the LXX translation of the Hebrew )‫) ְבכֹור‬.70 This shows that Philo connects the concepts and images of the “firstborn” and “son” of God (also in the biblical sense of the relationship between son and father in Ps 2:7) to the image of an angelic agent (“artisan” or “instrument”) as the Logos of God (i.e., Torah), who is created by God and works for creation with God.71 This shows that through a literary and hermeneutic strategy, the image of Philo’s Logos, rather than an essential unity with God, mainly appears as an angelic image of Torah as a mediator, which connects God and human beings. This corroborates that the angelic image of Philo’s Logos eventually allows for the nexus that connects personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos. This also provides explicit evidence for the relationships between the (angelic) images of the other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, the Johannine Logos, and memra.72 For instance, in a manner similar to Philo’s Logos, the memra, which is a biblical and rabbinic term for the Word of God, appears as one of the hypostatic notions of Torah and appears to have an angelic image of Torah. It is notable that the memra appears, in the targums, as a divine agent (in a similar sense as a voice or name or messenger, instead of God Himself) who hypostatizes and personifies the Laws of Moses.73 As many scholars analyzed, the image of memra, developed under the influence of the Hellenistic ideas, is parallel to a preexistent and personified Torah, although whether the memra is personified and hypostatized in the targums and rabbinic sources is still a controversial 68

Sterling, “When the Beginning Is the End,” 5–9, 48; According to Runia’s translation of Opif. xx., the cosmos composed of the ideas has its place on the divine Logos. See Runia, On the Creation of the Cosmos, 51, 142–43. 69 Sterling, 337, 344–45; Opif. xlviii–xlix, 139–42; xxiii–xxiv, 69–72. Philo explicates that the Logos, i.e., the Word of God, which is even superior, is connected to the first man who “created, as I think, in body and soul, surpassing all the men that now are and all that have been before us.” (Opif. xlix, 140). 70 Peder Borgen et al., The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Philo’s Works (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 303. There are descriptions of a critical function of the Logos (i.e., divine Word) as the firstborn in Philo’s works, such as Post. xviii, 63–65; Agr. xii, 51; Conf. xiv, 63; xxviii, 146; Fug. xxxviii, 208; Somn. I. xxxvii, 215. 71 Wolfson, Philo, 1:2; Alan F. Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 165. 72 Sterling, “When the Beginning Is the End,” 428–38. 73 Cf. Boyarin, Border Lines, 116–17; Keener, 1:349; Robert Hayward, “The Memra of YHWH,” 24, 147; Mack, Logos und Sophia, 6; Clarke, Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy, 23–24.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

157

issue.74 Nonetheless, the conceptual affinities of memra to the personification and hypostatization of Wisdom and Torah reinforce the relationship between the hypostatic notions of Torah and help us understand a theological framework, which can explain the different usages of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos. It is crucial to remember that the image of memra is profoundly connected to the Logos-Son image, which appears in Philo’s Logos and in the Johannine Logos.75 This authenticates that the concept and image of memra shows a profound relationship to the son-like or angelic image of Torah in relation to Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and other hypostatic notions of Torah. Specifically, the son-like and angelic images of memra are based in the grammatical and contextual interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬as the son-like image of personified Wisdom (in Prov 8:30–31), i.e., “child,” “nursling” or “son” who was “growing up” or “nestling in and being embraced” in the arms of God as His delight.76 As Fox and Lenzi analyzed, the Hebrew terms, ‫ׁשּועים‬ ִ ‫ ַׁש ֲע‬, ‫ ַׁש ֲע ֻׁש ַעי‬and ‫ ְמ ַׂש ֶח ֶקת‬in Prov 8:30–31 show a profound association with a “son-like” image of personified Wisdom who is “playing” and “enjoying” with God.77 It becomes evident that the son-like and angelic images of the Johannine Logos and personified Wisdom reflect an intimate relationship with God in the context of creation.78 The phrase “the only begotten Son” in Jn 3:16, which means the “beloved” and “chosen” son, strengthens the son-like and angelic images of the Johannine Logos, hypostatized and personified, as they are, by the Evangelist’s particular exegetic and hermeneutic strategy (e.g., a systematic

74 75

Ibid. Clarke, 23–24; Sperber et al., Targum Onkelos to Numbers, 270. There are Tg. Neof. to Dt 1:32, Tg. Onq. to Num 27:14. 76 Fox, “ʾAmon again,” 699–702; Victor A. Hurowitz, “Nursling, Advisor, Architect? and the Role of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, 22–31,” Biblica (1999): 396–97. In a primary reading, I agree with Clifford and Lenzi’s interpretation of ‫ ָאמֹון‬as a sage or master in accordance with the Mesopotamian tradition, since this shows explicit intertextual evidence among the studies so far. 77 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 287; idem, “ʾAmon again,” 699–702. Fox’s interpretation of ‫ ָאמֹון‬as a “child” who is “growing up” cannot be excluded on the basis of its literary development and my phenomenological study of the images of Torah. Cf. Fishbane, Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel, 285; Hurowitz, “Nursling, Advisor, Architect?” 398–99; Lenzi, “Proverbs 8:22–31,” 694–95, 708–9. 78 Heb 1:3a: ὃς ὢν ἀπαύγασμα τῆς δόξης καὶ χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως αὐτοῦ, φέρων τε τὰ πάντα τῷ ῥήματι τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ “The Son is the radiance of God’s glory and the exact representation of his being” (NIV; cf. 2 Cor 4:4) and “sustaining all things by his powerful word” (NIV; cf. Heb 9:14).

158

Chapter 2

allegorization and mythologization of the Logos).79 The “begotten” son-like image of the Johannine Logos (i.e., Jesus) in the bosom of God the Father in Jn 1:18 culminates in the incarnation of Jesus as the Son of God.80 This shows that the son-like image of ‫ ָאמֹון‬implies a concept of a heavenly (i.e., angelic) agent. The intertextual and theological allusions between the hypostatic notions of Torah, especially between the Johannine Logos and personified Wisdom, show that the images of a son growing up in the arms of God the Father alludes to an angelic figure, who is an agent of God, and substantiates an angelic image of Torah. Consequently, this examination shows that the Logos-Son image not only appears in the Logos-centered or related notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and the memra, but also provides a critical insight into understanding the Logos theology within multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity.81 This substantiates the existence of an angelic image of Torah, which mainly appears in a Greek Logos-centered tradition and was developed in the thought of the authors and readers of the Jewish and Christian sources of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. 3.2 A God-Like Image of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah Unlike the son-like and angelic images of personified Wisdom )‫ ) ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22–31, Wisdom also appears as a sage-like or God-like image, which preexists creation, as examined earlier. Specifically, the interpretation of ‫קָ֭ נָ נִ י‬ (Prov 8:22), which contains both the meanings of “created” and “acquired (or obtained) or begotten,” allows not only for the angelic image of personified Wisdom but also for a God-like one. The angelic and divine-like images of personified Wisdom can also be found explicitly in the dual conception of 79 80

81

The Septuagint translates Gen 22:2 (“thine only son”) as “thy beloved son,” which is used as a synonym of the “only begotten.” In the Synoptic Gospels, we can also find an explicit and implicit relationship between Jesus and the concepts of the “son” of God: the “son” of the master in the parable of the faithless laborers and the vineyard (Mk 12), and in a voice speaking from heaven in the baptismal scene (Mt 3:13–16), as well as some occasions reported by various individuals who appear in the Synoptic Gospels. As discussed earlier, a phenomenological distinction between early Christianity and rabbinic Judaism was not clear until the end of the fourth century, and then only through a complicated process, i.e., a prolonged and repeated segregation and rapprochement with ambiguity and fuzziness between the two religions. Nonetheless, the Jewish memra theology undeniably plays a crucial role in understanding not only the developmental process of the Logos theology but also the profound interactions of the hypostatic notions of Torah within multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

159

Philo’s Logos. As Wolfson notes, Philo’s Logos, in Ebr. viii, 31, encompasses not only son-like and angelic images but also appears as a seemingly uncreated divine or God-like being (a divine agent or a creator) in an equal position to God in creation (cf. Prov 3:14, 19).82 In the self-narratives (meshalim) of personified Wisdom in Prov 8–9, Wisdom appears in a sage-like, father-like (or mother-like), or divine-like image, who urges mankind, conceived as “sons,” to listen to her teaching and to seek wisdom (in Prov 8), while inviting them to her house as disciples (in Prov 9).83 In addition, we can see that in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom appears in the images of a creator or savior, with a divine or God-like image, who pre-existed the beginning of creation and has a special relationship with God’s beloved city of Jerusalem.84 It is notable that, as Winston points out, personified Woman Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon (e.g., Wis 7:25–30; 8:2–9) appears as a sage or mystic, who is conceived as a divine-like being who is an eternal emanation of the glory and power of God.85 Specifically, the forms of personified Wisdom in the Wisdom of Solomon implicitly convey the concept of the pneuma (πνεύμα) in a non-physical form, as a spiritual entity that appears closer to a God-like image of shekhinah.86 The personified Wisdom figure in Wis 7:25–8:1 appears to be symbolized or mythologized not only as a “savior” figure but also as a divine entity, emanated from God or God Himself.87 The conception of shekhinah, which implies a symbolic manifestation of the divine presence in the world, characterizes the features 82 Philo, Ebr. viii, 31; cf. Virt. x, 62–65. As Harry Wolfson, in Philo, 1:225, notes, it does not mean that Philo believed that Wisdom was not created by God and was “only obtained by Him after it had existed apart from God from eternity.” 83 Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 289. In comparison with Women Wisdom in Prov 8, the wisdom in Prov 5, 7, and 9 seems like a literary personification without a mythological background. It is notable that in ancient Jewish mystical and wisdom traditions, such as Philo’s works (e.g., Det. liv, 113–14; Leg. I. xi, 49; Ebr. viii, 30–31; Cher. xiv, 49) and Wisdom of Solomon (e.g., Wis 8:3) the figure of Wisdom is substituted for the symbolic images of the ‘mother goddess’ or the ‘spouse of God,’ which implies the idea of the hieros gamos with God. The images of the mother goddess reemerge in the images of shekhinah as a hypostatic notion related to the images of the Bride in the Song of Songs in the kabbalistic tradition (e.g., Sefer ha-Zohar II. 205a). See Scholem, On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism, 104–40. 84 Andrew T. Glicksman, Wisdom of Solomon 10, 122–23. Glicksman observes that Wisdom is placed in the heavenly court or the Temple in Jerusalem in Sir 24:8–11. 85 David Winston, “The Sage as Mystic in the Wisdom of Solomon,” in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East, ed. John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue (Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990), 387–93. Philo’s Logos also introduces pneuma or Spirit as a mediator of Wisdom (Gig. vi. 24–27; xi. 47–48). 86 Pohlenz, Die Stoa, 368. The pneuma as the Stoic reason symbolizes a living spirit (ne­shema, ‫)נשמה‬, which God breathed in the creation of Adam. 87 Sinnott, 161–62. For instance, “savior” in σοφίᾳ ἐσώθησαν in Wis 9:18 and as a “guide” in διέσωσε ἔσωσεν σοφία in Wis 10:4, in οδηγος in Wis 7:15, and in ὡδήγησεν in Wis 10:10.

160

Chapter 2

of the divine attributes and divine essence, which was later developed into the sefirotic system in the Middle Ages, as I will elaborate later in this study.88 In this sense, the God-like image of shekhinah, which can be regarded as one of the hypostatic notions, is profoundly related to the God-like images of both Wisdom and Torah.89 The omnipresence of God-shekhinah as the hypostasis of the divine presence, as seen in the talmudic and targumic sources, implies both a divine entity, created and separated from God, and a divine being identical with God.90 More importantly, the God-like image of shekhinah appears to be profoundly related to the “indwelling” image of the Johannine Logos in the Gospel of John (e.g., Jn 1:14) insofar as both reflect a sense of divine immanence. This relationship substantiates not only the personality and divinity of Jesus as the Logos-Son of God but also a God-like image of the Johannine Logos.91 This analysis demonstrates that the divine-like shekhinah is intertextually and theologically interlocked with the divine-like images and activities, which can be gleaned from the sage-like or father-like or God-like images of other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos and personified Wisdom in the creation context. In order to concretize the God-like image of Torah in the images and activities of personified Wisdom and Jesus, I will delve not only into their intertextual and theological relationships but also the exegetical strategies employed in the Wisdom literature and the Gospels with special focus on the theological intentions and compositional practices of the authors’ of each. It is notable that the images and activities of Jesus in the Gospels are replete with considerable allusions to the personified Wisdom figure in a banquet as described in Prov 9. I begin by examining the God-like images and activities of personified Wisdom and its parallels to those of Jesus. 88

Urbach, in The Sages, 65, notes that the shekhinah conveys both philosophical and mystical concepts of Torah. It can also be inferred that the concepts of shekhinah are developed into their profound relationships in the sefirotic system: Wisdom (ḥokhmah, upper she­ khinah) and shekhinah (malkhut, lower shekhinah). 89 The term “shekhinah” appears to signify “the personification and hypostasis” of the Divine Presence, even though this is controversial in classical rabbinic literature, as examined in Chapter 1 (pp. 95–99). 90 Ibid. 40–45. With reference to the verse in Ex 34:29, in Tanḥ. (Ki Tissa‌ʾ xxxiii), the Sages say, “The Holy One, blessed be He, taught him Torah, he received the beams of glory from the sparks that issued from the shekhinah.” This means that the shekhinah is none other than God. In Sifre Naso VI. 24, i. 2:B–C (Neusner, Sifre to Zutta to Numbers, 47), the notion of the light of the shekhinah (as the Divine Presence) appears to be God Himself can be seen in the verse “The Lord make His face to shine upon thee” (Num 6:25). 91 It is notable that in the descriptions of Jesus as the Son of God in the Gospels and New Testament texts (e.g., Col 1:15–18), the image of Jesus appears similar to a divine-like image of personified Wisdom as a demiurgical figure, which is superior to the images of an angelic mediator.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity Table 13

161

Parallelism between Woman Wisdom and Wisdom Folly

Woman Folly

Woman Wisdom

.‫ּובל־יָ ְד ָעה ָּמה‬ ַ ,‫ה; ּפ ַתּיּות‬ ְ ָ‫ ה ִֹמּי‬,‫יג ֵא ֶׁשת ְּכ ִסילּות‬ .‫ ְמר ֵֹמי ָק ֶרת‬,‫ל־ּכ ֵּסא‬ ִ ‫ּה ע‬ ַ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ְל ֶפ ַתח ֵּב‬,‫יד וְ יָ ְׁש ָבה‬ .‫חֹותם‬ ָ ‫ א ְֹר‬,‫י־ד ֶרְך;  ַה ְמיַ ְּׁש ִרים‬ ָ ‫טו ִל ְקרֹא ְלע ְֹב ֵר‬ .‫ וְ ָא ְמ ָרה ּלֹו‬,‫ר־לב‬ ֵ ‫ יָ ֻסר ֵהּנָ ה; וַ ֲח ַס‬,‫י־פ ִתי‬ ֶ ‫טז ִמ‬ .‫יִמ ָּתקּו; וְ ֶל ֶחם ְס ָת ִרים יִ נְ ָעם‬ ְ ‫נּובים‬ ִ ְ‫יז ַמיִ ם־ּג‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ם; ּב ִע ְמ ֵקי ְׁשאֹול ְק ֻר ֶא‬ ְ ‫י־ר ָפ ִאים ָׁש‬ ְ ‫ ִּכ‬,‫יח וְ לא־יָ ַדע‬

.‫יה ִׁש ְב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ּמּוד‬ ֶ ‫ּה; ח ְצ ָבה ַע‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ָּבנְ ָתה ֵב‬,‫א ָח ְכמֹות‬ ‫ ָע ְר ָכה ֻׁש ְל ָחנָ ה‬,‫ּה; אף‬ ַ ָ‫ ָמ ְס ָכה יֵ ינ‬,‫ב ָט ְב ָחה ִט ְב ָחּה‬ .‫ ְמר ֵֹמי ָק ֶרת‬,‫א על־ּגַ ֵּפי‬ ַ ‫יה ִת ְק ָר‬ ָ ‫ג ָׁש ְל ָחה נַ ֲער ֶֹת‬ .‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ּלֹו‬,‫ר־לב‬ ֵ ‫ה; ח ַס‬ ֲ ָ‫ יָ ֻסר ֵהּנ‬,‫י־פ ִתי‬ ֶ ‫ד ִמ‬ .‫ ְּביַ יִ ן ָמ ָס ְכ ִּתי‬,‫י; ּוׁשתּו‬ ְ ‫ ַל ֲחמּו ְב ַל ֲח ִמ‬,‫ה ְלכּו‬ .‫ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך ִּבינָ ה‬,‫ו ִעזְ בּו ְפ ָתאיִ ם וִ ְחיּו; וְ ִא ְׁשרּו‬

The majority of scholars follow the classification of Prov 9 depicted in the Table 13: “Woman Wisdom’s invitation to her banquet (vv. 1–6), and a Woman Folly’s counter-invitation (vv. 13–18), as well as an interlude (vv. 7–12).”92 The speeches of Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly demonstrate a parallelism in the structure of Prov 9.93 There is particular antithesis between Woman Wisdom (vv. 1–6), and Woman Folly (vv. 13–18).94 This parallel structure illustrates, in an antithetic form, the unfolding process and speech styles of each character.95 Importantly, the literary attempt to personify wisdom is conceivably based on the author’s desire for his theological views to have a strong impact on audiences. Using the vivid literary expressions, such as Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly, he explains two different paths of wisdom and foolishness.96 In 92 93 94

95

96

Clifford, Proverbs, 103. Prov 9 holds a critical position as the final edition within Prov 1–9. Note that parallelism and antitheses are literary and exegetical features of Jewish wisdom literature. Fox, in Proverbs 1–9, 339, argues that the term Wisdom must be female as opposed to a masculine word, such as sekhel (‫)שכל‬, in order to function as an erotic counterweight to the “explicitly sexual pull” of the Strange Woman or female Folly. Clifford also, in Proverbs, 102, notes, “The chapter contains Women Wisdom’s invitation to her banquet (vv. 1–6, +11), a counter-invitation by Women Folly (vv. 13–18) and five independent sayings (vv. 7–10, 12).” Harrington, in Wisdom Texts from Qumran, 34, summarizes that Woman Folly in Prov 9 is personified as a street prostitute, whereas Woman Wisdom is personified as a symbolic warning for young male students against Woman Folly’s attractions in Prov 8, and invites young people to her house in Prov 9. Clifford, in “Proverbs 9: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel,” VT 25 (1975): 299, suggests an Ugaritic origin based on the paralleled structure and similar images and activities of the Wisdom figure in Prov 9 and Anat, as a hostess in a scene of divine banquets, which appears in the Ugarit texts. The scene with a stereotyped language used in column vi (CTCA 17 = UT 2 Aqht) clearly appears as a divine banquet of the gods. The author intends to encourage the audience to choose the right ways of wisdom. Similarly, Jesus as Wisdom, encourages audiences to choose and follow the way that Jesus

162

Chapter 2

Prov 9, Wisdom’s speeches are accentuated by a metaphorical distinction from Woman Folly. In th first sentences of the speeches of the two Women, there are the similar designations for the subjects, ‫( ָח ְכמֹות‬wisdoms) (v. 1) and ‫ֵא ֶׁשת‬ ‫( ְּכ ִסילּות‬foolish women) (v. 13), and there are the detailed descriptions of the two Woman figures. Woman Wisdom (‫ ) ָח ְכמֹות‬makes a house (‫ ) ֵב ָיתּה‬with seven pillars, which she hews for her special feast (vv. 1–3).97 The depiction of the personified Woman Wisdom figure in vv. 1–3 has a sequential process: building, slaughtering, invitation, and feast.98 Her banquet is very well-organized and well-prepared on the table (‫) ָע ְר ָכה ֻׁש ְל ָחנָ ּה‬, with lavish meals with meat and well-mingled wine (‫ ָמ ְס ָכה יֵ ינָ ה‬,‫) ָט ְב ָחה ִט ְב ָחּה‬. She also appears “deliberate, and confident,” and to be capable of preparing and inviting her guests.99 In v. 3, she sends her maidens to invite her guests for her feast (‫) ָׁש ְל ָחה נַ ֲער ֶֹת ָיה‬, and she cries out to her guests (or her maidens) from the highest places of the city (‫על־ּגַ ֵּפי ְמר ֵֹמי ָק ֶרת‬, ַ ‫) ִת ְק ָרא‬. This description alludes to her high and special position such that she can send down her maidens and invite her guests to go up instructs. Paul similarly teaches that Jesus is the wisdom of God. He also contrasts wisdom and folly (e.g., 1 Cor 2:6–8). 97 Bruce K. Waltke, in The Book of Proverbs: Chapters 1–15 (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004), 124, summarizes the characteristics of Wisdom’s house and its seven pillars as three dimensions: cultic, cosmological, and literary. Fox, in Proverb 1–9, 297, comments, “Perhaps the notion of wisdom’s house predates Prov 9:1, but if so, it has been appropriated and demythologized.” Yet it still seems to convey not only a geographical and archeological meaning but also has a cultic character in the ancient Near East. In addition, ‫ָח ְצ ָבה‬ ‫יה ִׁש ְב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ּמּוד‬ ֶ ‫ ַע‬seems to represent not only a specific type of craftsmanship but also a particular style to hew stones hewn out of the rocks. 98 Waltke, The Book of Proverbs, 1:432. Waltke notes, “The scene depicted in 9:1–3 is particularly close to the dedication of Baal’s palace in Ugaritic texts.” 99 We can see an interesting parallel between the Wisdom’s banquet of Prov 9 and Ben Sira’s descriptions regarding a moderate manner for consuming food (Sir 31: 19–24) and drink (Sir 31: 25–31) in a banquet (e.g., Sir 15:3, 24:21, Sir 32, 37:27–31). Ben Sira might have tried to rephrase and rewrite Prov 9 through an exegetical and theological lens which transforms the mysterious and metaphorical expressions into ordinary and practical ones. The text below, Sir 31:22–27, is a modern reconstruction in Hebrew. See Skehan, 374. ‫שמע בני וקח מוסרי ואל תלעיג עלי ובאחרית תמצא דברי‬ ‫טוב על לחם תברך שפה עדות פובו נאמנה‬ ‫רע על לחם ירגז בשער דעת רועו נאמנה וגמ על היין אל תתגבר כי רבים חכשיל תירוש‬ ‫כור בוחן מעשה לוטש כן היין למצות לצים למי היין חיים לאנוש אמ ישתנו במת[ ]תו‬ “Instruction for bread and wine together (31:22–27): (22) my son, hear my instruction. Do not challenge me, and in the end, you will find out my words. (23) You will bless the word that bread is good. Their testimony to his excellence is trustworthy. (24) He will complain in the gate that bread is bad. Their testimony to his niggardliness is accurate. (25) Do not be valiant over wine, for wine has fall down many people. (26) Fire and water control the temper of steel, so wine tests hearts in the strife of the proud. (27) whom wine is life to men, if you drink it in moderation.”

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

163

to her house. In v. 4, her voice invites the simple (‫י־פ ִתי יָ ֻסר ֵהּנָ ה‬ ֶ ‫ ) ִמ‬and the one who lacks understanding (‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ּלֹו‬,‫ר־לב‬ ֵ ‫ ) ֲח ַס‬to come to her.100 She also urges the one who lacks understanding and is gullible to come and eat of her bread, and drink of her wine (v. 5). Furthermore, she speaks in the imperative mood, “forget all thoughtlessness, and live!” (‫;פ ָתאיִם וִ ְחיּו‬ ְ ‫ ) ִעזְ בּו‬and gives commands in a strong manner, “and walk in the way of understanding!” (‫ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך ִּבינָ ה‬,‫)וְ ִא ְׁשרּו‬. In a structure similar to that of the speech of Woman Wisdom, Woman Folly (‫ ) ֵא ֶׁשת ְּכ ִסילּות‬also appears to prepare for her own kind of banquet in her house.101 Yet, if structurally the banquet of Wisdom (vv. 1–6) is parallel to that of Folly (vv. 13–18), there is a clear contrast in their contents. Unlike Woman Wisdom, Woman Folly, who is riotous (‫ )ה ִֹמּיָ ה‬and totally gullible (‫) ְּפ ַתּיּות‬, is just sitting near the door of her house (‫ ְל ֶפ ַתח ֵּב ָיתה‬,‫ )יָ ְׁש ָבה‬on a seat in the high places of the city (‫ ְמר ֵֹמי ָק ֶרת‬,‫ל־ּכ ֵּסא‬ ִ ‫) ַע‬, and is waiting to invite the gullible passerby, who are thoughtless like her, to her banquet.102 She also calls out the passersby who are going right on their ways (‫חֹותם‬ ָ ‫י־ד ֶרְך ַה ְמיַ ְּׁש ִרים א ְֹר‬ ָ ‫) ְלע ְֹב ֵר‬, “one who is thoughtless, let him return to here,” with the same expressions as Woman Wisdom (vv. 4, 16). Woman Folly with an evil intention, in contrast to Woman Wisdom, also entices the one who lacks understanding to drink “stolen waters,”103 which will be sweet (‫נּובים ְיִמ ָּתקּו‬ ִ ְ‫) ַמיִ ם־ּג‬, and to eat “bread which will be pleasant in secret (‫) ֶל ֶחם ְס ָת ִרים יִ נְ ָעם‬.” The author of Prov 9 concludes the narrative of the Woman Folly figure by mentioning the deadly end of her way, “he does not know that the dead are there;104 that her guests are in the valley of the grave (sheol) (‫י־ר ָפ ִאים ָׁשם; ְּב ִע ְמ ֵקי ְׁשאֹול ְק ֻר ֶא ָיה‬ ְ ‫ ִּכ‬,‫)וְ לֹא־יָ ַדע‬.” It is worth noting that there is an interlude (vv. 7–12) between the contrasting descriptions of the two Woman figures. In v. 7, the narrator warns not to admonish a wicked man or scorner, who can take revenge on the admonisher with shame (‫ ) ָקלֹון‬and blot (‫)מּומֹו‬. In vv. 8–9, he advises, “do not reprove a scorner, lest he hates you; do reprove a wise man, then he will love you!” ( ָ‫ וְ יֶ ֱא ָה ֶבּך‬,‫הֹוכח ְל ָח ָכם‬ ַ ; ָ‫ ֶּפן־יִ ְׂשנָ ֶאּך‬,‫ל־ּתֹוכח ֵלץ‬ ַ ‫) ַא‬, and “Give to a wise man, then he 100 Robert C. Stallman, “Divinity Hospitality and Wisdom’s Banquet in Proverbs 9:1–6” in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke, ed. Bruce K. Waltke (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000), 126. 101 Woman Folly is deciphered as a more concrete version of the “loose woman” in Prov 2, 5, 6, and 7. 102 This means her lack of will “to leave her ignorance and complacency to do what is right.” (Waltke, 1:443). 103 Waltke (1:445) explains that water instead of wine is “an incomplete metaphor for sexual pleasure” so that “no contrast with Wisdom’ offer of wine is intended.” 104 Waltke (1:146) also interprets that those who are invited (call out in v. 3) refers to the apostates who followed her siren invitation (v. 18). Sheol refers to the corpses in her festive house.

164

Chapter 2

Table 14

7 8 9

Chiastic structure of Prov 9:7–9

A a scorner who get teaching and correction gives you a shame B a wicked man who get reproach will give you a blot C a scorner who get reproach will hate you C’ a wise man who get reproach will love you B’ a wise man who get reproach will be wiser. A’ a righteous man who get teaching and correction increases learning

will be wiser; teach a righteous man, he will add learning!” (;‫ וְ יֶ ְח ַּכם־עֹוד‬,‫ֵּתן ְל ָח ָכם‬ ‫יֹוס ֶל ַקח‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫הֹודע ְל ַצ ִּדיק‬ ַ ). It is notable that the interlude, which appears to be spo-

ken by a third person (i.e. the author of Prov 9), has a chiastic structure (in the narrative, vv. 7–9) that reveals the parallel natures of the statements of the scoffer and the wise. In summary, the portrayals of a wise man and righteous man in A’, B’, C’ are in direct oppositions to the depictions of a scorner and wicked man in A, B, C. In vv. 10–12, as a concluding statement, we read, “The fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and understanding is the knowledge of the Holy One” (‫ְּת ִח ַּלת‬ ‫ יִ ְר ַאת יְ הוָ ה; וְ ַד ַעת ְקד ִֹׁשים ִּבינָ ה‬,‫“ ;) ָח ְכ ָמה‬your days will be multiplied, and the years of your life will be added to you if (or because) you are in the God (i.e., the fear of God)” (‫ ְׁשנֹות ַחּיִ ים‬,‫יֹוסיפּו ְּלָך‬ ִ ְ‫יָמיָך; ו‬ ֶ ‫ יִ ְרּבּו‬,‫י־בי‬ ִ ‫“ ;) ִּכ‬if you are wise, the wisdom is for you; and if you scorn, you alone will suffer” (,‫ ָח ַכ ְמ ָּת ָּלְך; וְ ַל ְצ ָּת‬,‫ם־ח ַכ ְמ ָּת‬ ָ ‫ִא‬ ‫) ְל ַב ְּדָך ִת ָּׂשא‬.105 Through this textual analysis, we can infer that the purpose of the contrastive parallel between Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly appears to be deeply related to the authors’ theological intentions and exegetical practices, given their socio-historical and religious situations. This analysis not only substantiates that Prov 1–9 has theological significance, in context of the entire text of Proverbs, but also allows us to examine the intertextual and theological relationships between Prov 1–9 and other texts in the Wisdom literature, such as Sirach, as well as early Christian wisdom sources, including the Synoptic Gospels. In this context, I will further investigate the features of personified Wisdom as a master in a banquet, as it appears in Prov 9, in relation to other relevant texts. This below table shows not only an intertextual nexus between Prov 1 105 The Holy One, the plural ‫ קדושים‬usually refers to holy or saintly persons or to heavenly beings or angels. Most commentators take it to be an epithet of God – hence the translation, “the Holy One.”

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity Table 15

165

Intertextual and compositional nexus between Prov 1 and 9 on personified Wisdom

Prov 1

Prov 9

.‫קֹולּה‬ ָ ‫ ִּת ֵּתן‬,‫ה; ּב ְרחֹבֹות‬ ָ ָ‫ ַּבחּוץ ָּתר ֹּנ‬,‫כ ָח ְכמֹות‬ ‫ ְּב ִפ ְת ֵחי ְׁש ָע ִרים ָּב ִעיר‬:‫ ִּת ְק ָרא‬,‫ ְּברֹאׁש ה ִֹמּיֹות‬ ‫כא‬ ‫אמר‬ ֵ ֹ ‫יה ת‬ ָ ‫בּו־פ ִתי ֲא ָמ ֶר‬ ֶ ‫ ְּפ ָתיִם ְּת ֵא ֲה‬,‫ד־מ ַתי‬ ָ ‫כב ַע‬ .‫אּו־ד ַעת‬ ָ ְ‫ יִ ְׂשנ‬,‫ם; ּוכ ִס ִילים‬ ְ ‫ ָח ְמדּו ָל ֶה‬,‫וְ ֵל ִצים ָלצֹון‬ ;‫רּוחי‬ ִ ‫יעה ָל ֶכם‬ ָ ‫ ִהּנֵ ה ַא ִּב‬:‫תֹוכ ְח ִּתי‬ ַ ‫ ְל‬,‫כג ָּתׁשּובּו‬ ‫יעה ְד ָב ַרי ֶא ְת ֶכם‬ ָ ‫אֹוד‬ ִ .‫ וְ ֵאין ַמ ְק ִׁשיב‬,‫יתי יָ ִדי‬ ִ ‫ וַ ְּת ָמ ֵאנּו; נָ ִט‬,‫אתי‬ ִ ‫כד יַ ַען ָק ָר‬ .‫יתם‬ ֶ ‫ לֹא ֲא ִב‬,‫תֹוכ ְח ִּתי‬ ַ ְ‫ל־ע ָצ ִתי; ו‬ ֲ ‫כה וַ ִּת ְפ ְרעּו ָכ‬ ‫ לֹא ָב ָחרו‬,‫י־ׂשנְ אּו ָד ַעת; וְ יִ ְר ַאת יְ הוָ ה‬ ָ ‫ ִּכ‬,‫כט ַּת ַחת‬ .‫ל־ּתֹוכ ְח ִּתי‬ ַ ‫ ָּכ‬,‫א־אבּו ַל ֲע ָצ ִתי; נָ ֲאצּו‬ ָ ֹ‫לל‬ ‫יהם יִ ְׂש ָּבעּו‬ ֶ ‫ם; ּומּמ ֲֹעצ ֵֹת‬ ִ ‫ ִמ ְּפ ִרי ַד ְר ָּכ‬,‫אכלּו‬ ְ ֹ ‫לא וְ י‬ .‫ׁשּובת ְּפ ָתיִם ַּת ַה ְרגֵ ם; וְ ַׁש ְלוַ ת ְּכ ִס ִילים ְּת ַא ְּב ֵדם‬ ַ ‫לב ִּכי ְמ‬ .‫ ִמ ַּפ ַחד ָר ָעה‬,‫ן־ּב ַטח; וְ ַׁש ֲאנַ ן‬ ֶ ‫ יִ ְׁש ָּכ‬,‫לג וְ ׁש ֵֹמ ַע ִלי‬

‫יה ִׁש ְב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ּמּוד‬ ֶ ‫ּה; ח ְצ ָבה ַע‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ָּבנְ ָתה ֵב‬,‫א ָח ְכמֹות‬ ‫ ָע ְר ָכה ֻׁש ְל ָחנָ ה‬,‫ ָמ ְס ָכה יֵ ינָ ּה; ַאף‬,‫ב ָט ְב ָחה ִט ְב ָחּה‬ ‫ ְמר ֵֹמי ָק ֶרת‬,‫א על־ּגַ ֵּפי‬ ַ ‫יה ִת ְק ָר‬ ָ ‫ג ָׁש ְל ָחה נַ ֲער ֶֹת‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ּלֹו‬,‫ר־לב‬ ֵ ‫ה; ח ַס‬ ֲ ָ‫ יָ ֻסר ֵהּנ‬,‫י־פ ִתי‬ ֶ ‫ד ִמ‬ ‫ ְּביַ יִ ן ָמ ָס ְכ ִּתי‬,‫י; ּוׁשתּו‬ ְ ‫ ַל ֲחמּו ְב ַל ֲח ִמ‬,‫ה ְלכּו‬ ‫ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך ִּבינָ ה‬,‫ו ִעזְ בּו ְפ ָתאיִ ם וִ ְחיּו; וְ ִא ְׁשרּו‬ ‫ֹלק ַח לֹו ָק‬ ֵ ‫ ֵלץ‬,‫ז י ֵֹסר‬ .‫לֹון; ּומֹוכ ַיח ְל ָר ָׁשע מּומֹו‬ ִ ָ‫ וְ יֶ ֱא ָה ֶבּך‬,‫הֹוכח ְל ָח ָכם‬ ַ ; ָ‫ ֶּפן־יִ ְׂשנָ ֶאּך‬,‫ל־ּתֹוכח ֵלץ‬ ַ ‫ח ַא‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶל ַקח‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫ם־עֹוד; הֹודע ְל ַצ ִּדיק‬ ַ ‫ וְ יֶ ְח ַּכ‬,‫ט ֵּתן ְל ָח ָכם‬ ‫ יִ ְר ַאת יְ הוָ ה; וְ ַד ַעת ְקד ִֹׁשים ִּבינָ ה‬,‫י ְּת ִח ַּלת ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ‫ ְל ַב ְּדָך ִת ָּׂשא‬,‫ ָח ַכ ְמ ָּת ָּלְך; וְ ַל ְצ ָּת‬,‫ם־ח ַכ ְמ ָּת‬ ָ ‫יב ִא‬ ‫ּובל־יָ ְד ָעה ָּמה‬ ַ ,‫ה; ּפ ַתּיּות‬ ְ ָ‫ ה ִֹמּי‬,‫יג ֵא ֶׁשת ְּכ ִסילּות‬

and 9 but also an exegetical and compositional practice shared by the author(s) of Prov 1–8 and Prov 9. It is notable that the identity of Woman Wisdom in Prov 9 appears to be that of a builder and confident hostess.106 This appears very similar to the image of God, who is depicted as a divine host (e.g., Ex 17:1–16).107 As we can see in the Table 15, the terms and features of vv. 1–6, 13–18 in Prov 9 appear similar to or identical to earlier materials found in Prov 1.108 The chronological orders in Prov 1 and Prov 9 are antithetical to one another: Wisdom in Prov 1 calls out outside (‫ ) ַּבחּוץ‬while Wisdom in Prov 9 invites guests inside her house (‫) ֵב ָיתּה‬. The author(s) of Prov 1 and 9, in speeches with similar nuances, warn of the seriousness of the judgment of God and encourage the audiences to choose the fear of God and the way of wisdom by making a sharp distinction 106 Wisdom in Prov 9 prepares meats for a lavish banquet. It is comparable to an abundant banquet of meat and wine provided by the generosity of God in Isa 25:6. Cf. Stallman, Divine Hospitality in the Pentateuch: A Metaphorical Perspective on God as Host (PhD diss., Glenside, PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1999), 121. 107 God provides plentiful water from the rock, and manna and quails through Moses. This implies the personified Wisdom figure in Prov 9:1–6 has an image of God as a host. 108 For example, “Do not rebuke mockers” (‫ל־ּתֹוכח ֵלץ‬ ַ ‫ ) ַא‬in Prov 9:8 alludes to “my rebuke” (‫תֹוכ ְח ִּתי‬ ַ ) in Prov 1:25. In addition, “my bread” (‫ ) ְב ַל ֲח ִמי‬in Prov 9 seems to be symbolized as “my words” (‫ ) ְד ָב ַרי‬in Prov 1:23.

166 Table 16

Chapter 2 Intertextual and compositional relationship between Prov 8 and 9

Prov 9

Prov 8

‫יה ִׁש ְב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ּמּוד‬ ֶ ‫ּה; ח ְצ ָבה ַע‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ָּבנְ ָתה ֵב‬,‫א ָח ְכמֹות‬ ‫ ָע ְר ָכה ֻׁש ְל ָחנָ ה‬,‫ ָמ ְס ָכה יֵ ינָ ּה; ַאף‬,‫ב ָט ְב ָחה ִט ְב ָחּה‬ ‫ ְמר ֵֹמי ָק ֶרת‬,‫א על־ּגַ ֵּפי‬ ַ ‫יה ִת ְק ָר‬ ָ ‫ג ָׁש ְל ָחה נַ ֲער ֶֹת‬ ‫ ָא ְמ ָרה ּלֹו‬,‫ר־לב‬ ֵ ‫ה; ח ַס‬ ֲ ָ‫ יָ ֻסר ֵהּנ‬,‫י־פ ִתי‬ ֶ ‫ד ִמ‬ ‫ ְּביַ יִ ן ָמ ָס ְכ ִּתי‬,‫י; ּוׁשתּו‬ ְ ‫ ַל ֲחמּו ְב ַל ֲח ִמ‬,‫ה ְלכּו‬ ‫ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך ִּבינָ ה‬,‫ו ִעזְ בּו ְפ ָתאיִם וִ ְחיּו; וְ ִא ְׁשרּו‬ ‫לֹון; ּומֹוכ ַיח ְל ָר ָׁשע מּומֹו‬ ִ ‫ֹלק ַח לֹו ָק‬ ֵ ‫ ֵלץ‬,‫ז י ֵֹסר‬ ; ָ‫ ֶּפן־יִ ְׂשנָ ֶאּך‬,‫ל־ּתֹוכח ֵלץ‬ ַ ‫ח ַא‬ ָ‫ וְ יֶ ֱא ָה ֶבּך‬,‫הֹוכח ְל ָח ָכם‬ ַ ;‫ וְ יֶ ְח ַּכם־עֹוד‬,‫ט ֵּתן ְל ָח ָכם‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶל ַקח‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫הֹודע ְל ַצ ִּדיק‬ ַ ;‫ יִ ְר ַאת יְ הוָ ה‬,‫י ְּת ִח ַּלת ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ‫וְ ַד ַעת ְקד ִֹׁשים ִּבינָ ה‬ ‫ ְׁשנֹות ַחּיִ ים‬,‫יֹוסיפּו ְּלָך‬ ִ ְ‫יָמיָך; ו‬ ֶ ‫ יִ ְרּבּו‬,‫י־בי‬ ִ ‫יא ִּכ‬

.‫קֹולּה‬ ָ ‫ ִּת ֵּתן‬,‫א; ּותבּונָ ה‬ ְ ‫א־ח ְכ ָמה ִת ְק ָר‬ ָ ֹ ‫א ֲהל‬ .‫ְך; ּבית נְ ִתיבֹות נִ ָּצ ָבה‬ ֵ ‫י־ד ֶר‬ ָ ‫אׁש־מר ִֹמים ֲע ֵל‬ ְ ֹ ‫ב ְּבר‬ .‫ת; מבֹוא ְפ ָת ִחים ָּתר ֹּנָ ה‬ ְ ‫י־ק ֶר‬ ָ ‫ד־ׁש ָע ִרים ְל ִפ‬ ְ ַ‫ג ְלי‬ .‫ל־ּבנֵ י ָא ָדם‬ ְ ‫ ֶא‬,‫קֹולי‬ ִ ְ‫יׁשים ֶא ְק ָרא; ו‬ ִ ‫יכם ִא‬ ֶ ‫ד ֲא ֵל‬ .‫ ָה ִבינּו ֵלב‬,‫ה; ּוכ ִס ִילים‬ ְ ‫ה ָה ִבינּו ְפ ָתאיִ ם ָע ְר ָמ‬ .‫יׁש ִרים‬ ָ ‫ ֵמ‬,‫ר; ּומ ְפ ַּתח ְׂש ָפ ַתי‬ ִ ‫ ִּכי־נְ גִ ִידים ֲא ַד ֵּב‬,‫ו ִׁש ְמעּו‬ ֱ ‫ז ִּכ‬ ‫תֹוע ַבת ְׂש ָפ ַתי ֶר ַׁשע‬ ֲ ְ‫ יֶ ְהּגֶ ה ִח ִּכי; ו‬,‫י־א ֶמת‬ .‫ נִ ְפ ָּתל וְ ִע ֵּקׁש‬,‫ ֵאין ָּב ֶהם‬:‫י־פי‬ ִ ‫ל־א ְמ ֵר‬ ִ ‫ח ְּב ֶצ ֶדק ָּכ‬ .‫ ְלמ ְֹצ ֵאי ָד ַעת‬,‫יׁש ִרים‬ ָ ִ‫ ַל ֵּמ ִבין; ו‬,‫ט ֻּכ ָּלם נְ כ ִֹחים‬ .‫ ֵמ ָחרּוץ נִ ְב ָחר‬,‫ל־ּכ ֶסף; וְ ַד ַעת‬ ָ ‫חּו־מּוס ִרי וְ ַא‬ ָ ‫י ְק‬ ;‫ ִמ ְּפנִ ינִ ים‬,‫י־טֹובה ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ָ ‫יא ִּכ‬ .‫וּו־בּה‬ ָ ‫ לֹא יִ ְׁש‬,‫ל־ח ָפ ִצים‬ ֲ ‫וְ ָכ‬ .‫ ָׁש ַכנְ ִּתי ָע ְר ָמה; וְ ַד ַעת ְמזִ ּמֹות ֶא ְמ ָצא‬,‫י־ח ְכ ָמה‬ ָ ִ‫יב ֲאנ‬ ‫את־רע‬ ָ ֹ ‫ ׂשנ‬,‫ה‬ ְ ָ‫יג יִ ְר ַאת יְ הו‬

between the ways of the foolish and wise. The speeches of the two Wisdom figures demonstrate similar metaphorical and poetic expressions. In all, the intertextual and exegetical nexuses between Prov 1 and 9 appear to concretize the divine-like images of personified Wisdom. As we can see in the Table 16 below, there is explicit evidence of the use of similar images and activities of personified Wisdom in Prov 8 and 9. They share similar vocabularies, speech styles, and describe the same unfolding processes. One of the common ideas of Prov 8 and 9 is the fear of God. According to Prov 9:10, the beginning of wisdom is the fear of God. The fear of God in Prov 8, which is equivalent to hating evil (v. 12), is accentuated by wisdom (v. 11). These similarities notwithstanding, Wisdom in Prov 9 has quite a different sense than personified Wisdom in Prov 8 in the context of creation. The personified Wisdom figure in Prov 8 directly introduces herself as Wisdom (v. 12), who speaks in an equal or close position with God, whereas Woman Wisdom in Prov 9 shows a seemingly fundamental distance from God.109 However, Woman Wisdom in Prov 9 also implicitly appears to have 109 In Prov 8, Wisdom has a role of subject, whereas in Prov 9, God has a role of subject. It can be inferred that there is diversity in the personification of wisdom such that in one instance it is depicted as a hypostasis and in another as a literary figure.

167

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

a position (i.e., as a master in a banquet) close to an image of God through a poetic and literary strategy, which I will further discuss in comparison to the images of Jesus in the Gospels. Furthermore, intertextual allusions from Prov 2, 3, 5, 7 and 31 which appear in Prov 9, provide the evidence of an exegetical practice of rewriting, a practice that shows a profound nexus between Wisdom and Torah.110 This woman figure (e.g., Prov 31:26) also appears as a sage-like or teacher-like figure who teaches wisdom and the Laws of Moses (i.e., Torah) in a manner similar to the images of personified Wisdom in Prov 8. Table 17

The intertextual allusions between Prov 9 and 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 31 in Proverbs

Prov 1, 2, 3, 5, 7, and 31

Prov 9

‫ ִא ְמ ֵרי ִבינָ ה‬,‫ר; ל ָה ִבין‬ ְ ‫ּומּוס‬ ָ ‫ָל ַד ַעת ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֹלה‬ ֶ ‫ת־ּב ִרית ֱא‬ ְ ‫יה; וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫עּור‬ ֶ ְ‫ ַאּלּוף נ‬,‫ַהעֹזֶ ֶבת‬ .‫ָׁש ֵכ ָחה‬ ‫ּומּוסר‬ ָ ‫אׁשית ָּד ַעת; ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ִ ‫ ֵר‬,‫יִ ְר ַאת יְ הוָ ה‬ ‫יֹוסף ֶל ַקח‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫יִ ְׁש ַמע ָח ָכם‬ ‫ל־ּת ִהי ָח ָכם ְּב ֵעינֶ יָך; יְ ָרא ֶאת־יְ הוָ ה‬ ְ ‫ַא‬ ‫ ע ֶֹׁשר וְ ָכבֹוד‬,‫אולּה‬ ָ ֹ ‫ּה; ּב ְׂשמ‬ ִ ָ‫ימינ‬ ִ ‫ ִּב‬,‫יָמים‬ ִ ‫א ֶֹרְך‬

1:1 2:17

‫ ֵמ ִרים ָקלֹון‬,‫לּו; ּוכ ִס ִילים‬ ְ ‫ָּכבֹוד ֲח ָכ ִמים יִ נְ ָח‬ ‫ה; ל ְתבּונָ ִתי‬ ִ ‫ ְל ָח ְכ ָמ ִתי ַה ְק ִׁש ָיב‬,‫ְּבנִ י‬ ,‫ל־ר ָפ ִאים‬ ְ ‫יתּה; וְ ֶא‬ ָ ‫ל־מוֶ ת ֵּב‬ ָ ‫ִּכי ָׁש ָחה ֶא‬ ‫יה‬ ָ ‫ֹלת‬ ֶ ְ‫ַמ ְעּג‬ ‫י־מוֶ ת‬ ָ ‫ל־ח ְד ֵר‬ ַ ‫ ֶא‬,‫יתּה; י ְֹרדֹות‬ ָ ‫ַּד ְר ֵכי ְׁשאֹול ֵּב‬ ‫יִמ ָצא; וְ ָרחֹק ִמ ְּפנִ ינִ ים ִמ ְכ ָרּה‬ ְ ‫ ִמי‬,‫ת־חיִ ל‬ ַ ‫ֵא ֶׁש‬ ,‫תֹורת ֶח ֶסד‬ ַ ְ‫ ָּפ ְת ָחה ְב ָח ְכ ָמה; ו‬,‫יה‬ ָ ‫ִּפ‬ ‫ל־לׁשֹונָ ּה‬ ְ ‫ַע‬

3:27 5:1 2:18

1:7 1:5 3:7 3:16

7:27 31:10 31:26

‫יה ִׁש ְב ָעה‬ ָ ‫ּמּוד‬ ֶ ‫ּה; ח ְצ ָבה ַע‬ ָ ‫ית‬ ָ ‫ ָּבנְ ָתה ֵב‬,‫ָח ְכמֹות‬ ‫ ְּב ֶד ֶרְך ִּבינָ ה‬,‫ִעזְ בּו ְפ ָתאיִ ם וִ ְחיּו; וְ ִא ְׁשרּו‬

1 6

; ָ‫ ֶּפן־יִ ְׂשנָ ֶאּך‬,‫ל־ּתֹוכח ֵלץ‬ ַ ‫ַא‬ ‫הֹוכח ְל ָח ָכם‬ ַ ‫יֹוסף‬ ֶ ְ‫ ו‬,‫הֹודע ְל ַצ ִּדיק‬ ַ ;‫ וְ יֶ ְח ַּכם־עֹוד‬,‫ֵּתן ְל ָח ָכם‬ ‫ֶל ַקח‬ ‫ יִ ְר ַאת יְ הוָ ה; ְקד ִֹׁשים ִּבינָ ה וְ ַד ַעת‬,‫ְּת ִח ַּלת ָח ְכ ָמה‬ ;‫יָמיָך‬ ֶ ‫ יִ ְרּבּו‬,‫י־בי‬ ִ ‫ִּכ‬

8

‫ּובל־יָ ְד ָעה ָּמה‬ ַ ,‫ ה ִֹמּיָ ה; ְּפ ַתּיּות‬,‫ֵא ֶׁשת ְּכ ִסילּות‬ ;‫י־ר ָפ ִאים ָׁשם‬ ְ ‫ ִּכ‬,‫וְ לֹא־יָ ַדע‬ ‫ְּב ִע ְמ ֵקי ְׁשאֹול ְק ֻר ֶאיה‬

110 In Prov 9, the fear of God is a prerequisite for the life of wisdom, whereas in Prov 8, the fear of God is a consequence and its explanation, which is derived from personified Wisdom. Torah does not appear in Prov 8 and 9 but seems to be implicitly mentioned in the teaching of wisdom and Torah in Prov 8:1 (‫) ְתבּונָ ה‬, Prov 8:8 (‫י־פי‬ ִ ‫ל־א ְמ ֵר‬ ִ ‫) ְבּ ֶצ ֶדק ָכּ‬, and Prov 9:10 (‫עת‬ ַ ‫וד‬ ְ ַ ‫) ְקד ִֹׁשים ִבינָ ה‬.

9 10 11

13 18

168

Chapter 2

As Stuart Weeks notes, Prov 9 employs literary and symbolic imagery in a complicated poetic and compositional form that expresses the mystical images of the personified Woman figure in regard to Torah.111 This substantiates a particular literary and exegetic strategy, which utilizes the personified Wisdom characters as figurative imagery for formulating a God-like image of Torah. On the basis of this previous examination, I now turn to discuss the presence and features of personified Wisdom in early Christian sources, including the Gospels, which need thorough explanations, as they are profoundly involved with the Wisdom literature that was mainly composed over a period of a thousand years between around 900 BCE and 100 CE.112 As Georgi asserted, the universal aspects of Jewish wisdom, taken by ancient Jewish Apologists, appear to be derived from the Hellenistic context which utilizes the dialectic between particularism and universalism.113 This primarily elucidates a theological and philosophical process combining Judaism and Hellenism within the Wisdom literature, such as Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, as well as Philo’s works. The sapiential materials in the NT illuminate that a universalistic Jewish Wisdom movement existed and had a huge impact on the Jesus tradition in the NT under Hellenistic influence.114 It cannot be denied that there were great changes and influences in which, in early Jewish Christianity, the locus of Wisdom as Torah is replaced with Jesus, and that the Jesus tradition was influenced, to some extent, by the Hellenization of early Judaism, which appears 111 Stuart Weeks, Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9 (New York; Oxford: Oxford Univer­ sity Press, 2007), 127, 135–38. The features and functions of the personified Wisdom figure in Prov 9 are amplified by the contrast with the Woman Folly. For instance, the expression of “the highest places of the city” (v. 3) and “on a seat in the high places of the city” (v. 14) alludes to a motif of the imagery of personified wisdom. Woman Folly, on the middle of her way to go up to the highest places of the city, entices the simple, who were invited by Woman Wisdom to a joyous banquet. This evokes an imaginative power about the way to gain wisdom. In other words, Wisdom’s students should overcome Woman Folly’s seduction to get to Woman Wisdom’s house and her banquet as a destination for those who seek wisdom and the fear of God. Washington also argues that the woman must be understood within the context of the post-exilic campaign against marriage to foreign women. See also Washington, “The Strange Woman of Proverbs 1–9 and Post-Exilic Judean Society,” 217–42. 112 Witherington, Jesus the Sage, 381. 113 Ibid., 382. 114 Ibid., 381; Georgi, 337–38. As noted earlier, we can infer that the cross-fertilization between the NT and the late Jewish sapiential materials within various Jewish Wisdom traditions influenced Gentiles as well as Jews in the Second Temple period and Late Antiquity throughout the Mediterranean crescent. This also shows that early Jewish Christianity was not only part of the Jewish Wisdom movement but also maintained its Christological uniqueness.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

169

in the Jewish Wisdom materials. On the basis of this appraisal, Witherington summarizes the striking resemblance between personified Wisdom and Jesus in the Fourth Gospel.115 In considering the chronology of the origins of the materials, it is generally accepted that the Synoptics came prior to that of the Fourth Gospel (the Gospel of John).116 The relationship between personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos, which we have intertextually, exegetically, and theologically examined above, also provides a critical insight into the similar images and activities of personified Wisdom in their corollary texts, such as the Synoptics. Yet in comparison to the Fourth Gospel, where the influence is more complex, the sapiential materials’ impact on the Synoptic Gospels appears to influence the Jesus tradition more straightforwardly. In this context, we can find the striking similarities between personified Wisdom and Jesus in the Synoptics. Mack examines the “earliest Christology” in order to prove its Jewish derivations from “anthropological poetries of contemporary Jewish wisdom writings” as well as apocalyptic texts.117 “Sophia-Christology” in Q and Matthew, which Marion J. Suggs, John S. Kloppenborg, and James M. Robinson have discussed, is very critical for understanding various expressions of the images of Wisdom as aspects of “a high Christology,” especially in the Synoptics.118 It is evident that the earlier sapiential materials, such as Proverbs, 115 Witherington, in Jesus the Sage, 374, summarizes the resemblances as follows: 1) the Logos hymn; 2) “I am” saying and discourses; 3) the use of father-language, and teacher-learner language; 4) various aspects of Christology, soteriology, and pneumatology. 116 Moulton, in “The Dating of the Synoptic Gospels,” summarizes, “During the remaining years of the century one can trace a growing unanimity in these conclusions, as well as in the belief that all three Synoptic Gospels were written during the last thirty years of the first century, although a few scholars still continued to keep the first decade of the second open for Matthew and Luke.” See Bultmann and Brown’s notes about the dates of the Gospel of John as mentioned in Chapter 1, n. 189, above. 117 Burton L. Mack, The Christ and Jewish Wisdom, in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 197–209. Mack classifies the anthropology of Jewish Wisdom into three categories: 1) personified Wisdom; 2) the kingly figure who rules by wisdom; 3) the righteous and wise salvific figure. The mythological depiction of the Wisdom figures as divine can be found, as examined earlier, in the Wisdom literature of the Hebrew Bible, as well as in Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, Maccabean literature, and Philo’s works. 118 Marion J. Suggs, Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).; John S. Kloppenborg, “Wisdom Christology in Q,” Laval Theologique et Philosophique 33/34 (1977–78), 129–47; James M. Robinson, “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels,” in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. R. Wilken (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975), 1–16. Several scholars, such as R. Hamerton-Kelly, Jack T. Sanders, and Elisabeth S. Fiorenza, discussed the patterns of the theological subjects, such as preexistence, humiliation, and exaltation of Wisdom in its hymnic formulations in terms of a “high Christology.”

170

Chapter 2

offer a direct parallel to the Synoptics in terms of the Jewish Wisdom-centered traditions.119 The images and activities of Jesus in the Synoptics also show parallels to those of personified Wisdom.120 It is notable that an examination of personified Wisdom in a mashal form, i.e., a figurative Wisdom speech, appears to prove the presence of the components of Wisdom in the Jesus tradition.121 In both the Jesus tradition and early Jewish and rabbinic traditions, a mashal is supposed to be constructed as an ordinary phenomenon, derived from standard human communications. This is the case, as well, with the mashal of personified Wisdom, which is precisely constructed in this manner.122 In this context, several scholars, such as Adolf Jülicher, Joachim Jeremias, Ruben Zimmermann, David Flusser, and Brad H. Young, suggested various theories about the relationship between the rabbinic (early tannaitic midrashic) meshalim and the parables of Jesus in the Gospels and other early-Christian sources.123 These examinations substantiate that the relationship between the narrative meshalim in midrashim and the parables of Jesus is of critical significance since they have many common sources.124 David Flusser emphasizes the hermeneutical (allegorical) features of the mashal, assuming the influences of classical Greek parables, while Yonah Fraenkel emphasizes its rhetorical

As discussed earlier, the implicit images and backgrounds of Wisdom are explicit in the Johannine Logos in relation to Christology. See Kelly, Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973); Sanders, The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background, vol. 162 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004); Fiorenza, “Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament,” in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity, ed. R. Wilken (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, c1975), 17–41. 119 Mack, Logos and Sophia, 1–6. Cf. Epp. “Wisdom, Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel,” 133–36. 120 Witherington, 161–83, 384. 121 See Witherington, 155, 382; Riesner, Jesus Als Lehrer, 392–94. 122 Ibid., 205. 123 Adolf Jülicher, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu, vol. 2, 2nd ed. (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963); Joachim Jeremias, Die Gleichnisse Jesu, 1947 (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1962); Ruben Zimmermann and Detlev Dormeyer, Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu (Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007), 17–27; idem, “Parabeln – sonst nichts! Gattungsbestimmung jenseits der Klassifikation in ‘Bildwort’, ‘Gleichnis’, ’Parabel’ und ‘Beispielerzählung’,” in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008), 383–419. 124 Teugels, The Meshalim in the Mekhiltot, 7–8, 29–33, 44–45. I hope to offer, in a separate study, a detailed analysis of the shared aspects between narrative meshalim in midrashim and parables of Jesus.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

171

(narrative) features.125 The majority of the meshalim that are presented in midrashim, such as Mekhilta, convey a midrashic form as a two-stage narrative with a plot, which allegorically and symbolically offer a new understanding of the Torah text.126 In this vein, Paul Fiebig notes that the rabbinic meshalim show explicit parallels with Jesus’ parables, while emphasizing the prior qualities of the parables of Jesus over the exegetical (i.e., allegorical) forms of the rabbinic parables.127 On the contrary, Reuven Kiperwasser asserts that the originality of Jesus’ parables derives from the contents (i.e., the patterns of religious ideas) of rabbinic parables.128 In this sense, he further articulates that both the rabbinic parables and Jesus’ parables, which were hypothetically derived from an ancient Jewish homiletic tradition, show a historical evolution of the parables, 125 Flusser, Die Rabbinischen Gleichnisse, 40–43. David Flusser notes that rabbinic parables (i.e., midrashic meshalim), which were mainly influenced by Hellenistic philosophical-ethical genres, are allegorical in nature. Yonah Fraenkel, “Darkhei Ha’aggadah Vehamidrash,” Prooftexts 14.2 (1994): 189–204. 126 Robert M. Johnston and Theodor Guttmann classify various usages and features of the meshalim in the midrashim such as Mekhilta. Johnston, “Parabolic Interpretations Attributed to Tannaim” (PhD diss., Hartford Seminary, 1977), 216; Julius Guttmann, HaMashal bitkufat Hatannaim (Jerusalem: Guild Cooperative Press, 1940), 3–8. Boyarin, in Intertextuality, 88, notes that the mashal is a syntactically and semantically structured narrative and a schematic code or matrix which creates the narrative of the Torah. Arnold Goldberg clarifies the form mashal (Schriftauslegende Gleichnis) as consisting of 6 elements 1) lemma, 2) issue (Sache), 3) introduction of the mashal proper, 4) mashal proper (Relat), 5) introduction of the nimshal, 6) nimshal (Korrelat). Relat and Korrelat can correspond a ‘protasis’ (a starting problem) and a ‘apodosis’ (consequential solution), respectively. Goldberg, Margarete Schlüter, and Peter Schäfer, Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung: gesammelte Studien II. vol. 2 (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999), 146–47, 159–95. For Alexander Samely, schematic structures in meshalim can shape and interpret the biblical texts. Samely, Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 188–92. 127 Jülicher, in Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (1963), overlooked the relationship of rabbinic parables, while focusing on the historical contexts and theological implications, relating to the ministry and kerygma of Jesus. Fiebig also recognizes that unlike the rabbinic parables, the Kingdom of God is the focal point of Jesus’ parables. Paul Fiebig, Die Gleichnisreden Jesu (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904), 127–61. However, he emphasizes the literary and structural similarities (e.g., aphoristic sayings and exegetical parables) connecting rabbinic and Jesus’ parables. Specifically, he points out that Jesus’ parables further resemble the midrashic features of early Jewish apocryphal works, such as the Apocryphon of Ezekiel. See also James R. Mueller, The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994); Michael E. Stone, Benjamin G. Wright, and David Satran, The Apocryphal Ezekiel (Atlanta: SBL, 2000); Reuven Kiperwasser, “A Bizarre Invitation to the King’s Banquet: The Metamorphosis of a Parable Tradition and the Transformation of an Eschatological Idea,” Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History 33.2 (2013): 158–59. 128 Kiperwasser, “A Bizarre Invitation to the King’s Banquet,” 159–60.

172

Chapter 2

which was developed and entrenched in each unique literary form of early Christian sources and (early and late) rabbinic literature, respectively.129 Against the conceptual backdrop, Birger Gerhardsson asserts that narrative meshalim in the Hebrew Bible, the Wisdom materials, as well as rabbinic midrashim, appear very similar to Jesus’ parables and aphorisms in the Synoptics.130 A point of particular contention among scholars is whether Jesus himself, as a sage-like figure, shows an explicit parallel to the depiction of personified Wisdom as a sage-like figure in Proverbs.131 In Mt 11:19b; 12:42 and in Lk 11:31, there is clear evidence of Jesus’ attempt to identify himself with Wisdom embodied with flesh and of the interpretation of Jesus’ mission in light of the earlier Wisdom traditions.132 This personification of wisdom is developed into a particularism, identifying Jesus himself as a specific historical person.133 The exegetical practices of the personification or hypostatization of wisdom can already be found in the pre-Christian wisdom material, such as the earlier Jewish sapiential traditions like Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, as examined earlier. In this sense, it is generally reasonable to assume that it is a symbolic identification and personification, which as in the earlier material, does not mean an actual historical and individual personification. However, in the Jesus tradition, in that Jesus presented himself as a Jewish prophetic sage who adopts a sapiential form of meshalim (e.g. aphorisms, parables), we can see that the images of Jesus are intertwined with an actual historical personification and hypostatization through a particular hermeneutic strategy.134 As noted earlier, several passages in the Gospels, such as Mt 11:28–30, illuminate the sage-disciple relationship, and especially the image of Jesus as a sage who is personified embodiment of wisdom. In Jesus’ attempt to identify his incarnated self with personified Wisdom as a sage in the Wisdom literature (e.g.,

129 Ibid., 169–71. 130 Gerhardsson, “The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels,” 339–63. 131 Luke’s author seems to conclude that Jesus was a teacher of wisdom who was tremendously marked by the possession and employment of wisdom, and he was the entity itself of Wisdom itself. See Witherington, 191. 132 Lk 11:31: ὅτι ἦλθεν ἐκ τῶν περάτων τῆς γῆς ἀκοῦσαι τὴν σοφίαν Σολομῶνος, καὶ ἰδοὺ πλεῖον Σολομῶνος ὧδε. “For she came from the ends of the earth to listen to Solomon’s wisdom, and now one greater than Solomon is here.” Mt 11:19b: καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ τῶν ἔργων αὐτῆς. “But wisdom is proved right by her actions.” It appears to be clear that Jesus saw himself as Wisdom and interpreted his mission in the light of the earlier Wisdom poems and hymns. Cf. Mt 12:42; Sir 24:7 ff. 133 Witherington, 384. 134 Ibid., 159.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

173

Wis 10:9–10), a divine image (i.e., a God-like image) of Jesus is clear.135 These parallels and interrelationships between Jesus and Wisdom as a sage reveal the divine or God-like images of Jesus, who is a mashal himself, and who reinterprets prophetically and eschatologically the divine message to His people for the Kingdom of God.136 In view of Wisdom Christology, many scholars tried to discover in the divine images of Jesus a unique and unprecedented identification of Jesus as personified Wisdom and shekhinah, which convey abstract qualities and images of God, and thereby allude to the divine-like image of Torah. This implies that early Jewish Christian thinkers created the sapiential Christological hymns, found in early Christian sources including the Gospels, which symbolically identify Jesus as personified Wisdom. It also demonstrates that, unlike an allegorical interpretation, Jesus’ parables in the Synoptics allude to a symbolic strategy which expresses personified Wisdom’s prophetic ability to reveal the truth and to reveal aspects of the character of God.137 As discussed by Gerhardsson, despite the fact that the early Jewish and rabbinic parables and Jesus’ narrative meshalim have features distinct from each other, the significant impact of narrative meshalim of personified Wisdom on the parables of Jesus is not compromised. Rather they provide a new perspective for considering the relationship between the Jewish wisdom material and Jesus’ own appropriations of this material.138 This further corroborates that the divine (or God-like) images of Jesus appear to be formulated through a process of “cross-fertilization” between various forms of personified Wisdom’s speech, which address prophetic, apocalyptic, and salvific ideas and messages.139

135 Wis 10:9–10: σοφία δὲ τοὺς θεραπεύοντας αὐτὴν ἐκ πόνων ἐρρύσατο. 10 αὕτη φυγάδα ὀργῆς ἀδελφοῦ δίκαιον ὡδήγησεν ἐν τρίβοις εὐθείαις· ἔδειξεν αὐτῷ βασιλείαν θεοῦ καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτῷ γνῶσιν ἁγίων· εὐπόρησεν αὐτὸν ἐν μόχθοις καὶ ἐπλήθυνεν τοὺς πόνους αὐτοῦ. “10 Wisdom rescued from troubles those who served her 11 When a righteous man fled from his brother’s wrath, she guided him on straight paths; she showed him the kingdom of God and gave him knowledge of angels [holy things]; she prospered him in his labors and increased the fruit of his toil” (RSV). This illustrates that the role of Jesus is very similar to the role of Wisdom. 136 Witherington, 202. 137 Ibid., 159–60. Scholem, Major Trends, 27. Scholem notes that while allegory demonstrates logically “an expressible something by another expressible something,” symbolism represents intuitively “something which lies beyond the sphere of expression and communication.” I will discuss the comparison between allegory and symbolism in detail later in this study. 138 Gerhardsson, “If We Do not Cut the Parables out of their Frames,” 329–32. 139 Witherington, 201, 384–85.

174

Chapter 2

On the basis of these examinations, I will further try to prove a profound nexus between the images and activities of personified Wisdom and those of Incarnate Logos, i.e., Jesus in the Gospels in relation to other hypostatic notions of Torah. As examined above, in a long discourse in Prov 1:21–30 and 8:17 (cf. Job 11:6–7; Wis 6:4, 17–18, 22; Wis 9:9–10, 18), personified Wisdom provides answers to humans’ questions regarding life, wisdom, divine will, and teachings of Torah. Clifford notes that personified Wisdom’s instructions in Prov 8–9 are analogous to the “father-son” instructions elsewhere in the book of Proverbs.140 In this vein, a father-like image of personified Wisdom appears in the teachings of wisdom against the gang of men in Prov 1 and 2 (e.g., Prov 1:8–19; Prov 2:12–15) and against the strange woman in Prov 2, 5, 6, 7 and 9 (e.g., Prov 2:16–19; 5:3–5, 20; 6:20–35; 7:5–27; 9:13–18).141 The image of Wisdom in a masculine and feminine form is profoundly based on not only a divine-like image of Wisdom, as a hypostatic notion of Yahweh, but also implicitly a God-like image of Torah as a superior source of wisdom in Prov 1–9. These images (sage-like or father-like) and activities of personified Wisdom resemble those of Jesus who provides answers to humans’ questions in long discourses in the Gospels, such as Sermon on the Mount in Mt 5–7.142 In Jesus’ speeches and discourses, we can find significant exegetical, semantic, and theological similarities to those of Widsom in Prov 1–9. Strikingly, the “I am” sayings of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel (e.g., Jn 6:35; Jn 14:6) have a similar character to those of the “I am” sayings of personified Wisdom in Proverbs and several other Wisdom texts.143 Wisdom first calls (κηρύξεις, κηρύσσεται and παρεδρεύει) 140 Clifford, “Proverbs 1–9 as Instruction for a Young Man and for ‘Everyman,’” 131–35. Personified Wisdom in Prov 8–9 also appears as a “parent (father or mother),” who urges mankind as “sons” to listen to her teaching and to seek wisdom, while inviting them to her house as disciples. Clifford emphasizes that the analogical approach can preserve both a literal and symbolic meaning while not separating the parent’s instructions from the teachings of personified Wisdom in Prov 8. See ibid., 131–41. Analogy is defined as “a comparison between the two things, typically their structure and for the purpose of explanation or clarification.” See Angus Stevenson, and Christine A. Lindberg, eds., New Oxford American Dictionary, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010), 55. For Fox, the teachings of personified Wisdom reflect an inner-worldly dimension in an allegorical sense. See Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 276, 293. 141 Ibid., 136–41. Clifford notes that the “father-son” instructions are extended to the youth, and a general audience in the future. 142 The images and beatitudes of Jesus, who ascends on the Mount and gives a new teaching of the Law, appear to be profoundly related to the images and activities of Moses who ascends to receive the Law unto Mt. Sinai. Cf. William F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Matthew (Anchor Bible; Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971), 65–72. 143 There is a significant hint that “I am” sayings of Jesus are indebted to “I am” discourse of Wisdom in Wisdom materials. The “I am” discourse recalls a critical feature of the

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

175

her people in Prov 1:20–21 and 8:1–4 (cf. Wis 6:16). In a similar manner, Jesus lets his disciples, and his people follow, and come and see (ἤκουσαν, λέγει, and Ἔρχεσθε καὶ ὄψεσθε) what Jesus does in Jn 1:35–51; 9:35 (cf. Mt 4:18–20; Mk 1:14–20, Lk 5:1–11). These verses imply that Jesus also calls his people. Just as Wisdom raises her voice and cries out in public places in Prov 1:20–21 and 8:1–4, so too Jesus cries out (ἔκραξεν) in a public place in Jn 7:28, 37 and 12:44 (cf. Mt 21:46). Wisdom calls the audience her children (υἱοῖς ἀνθρώπω and υἱέ) in Prov 8:31–32 (cf. Sir 4:11; 6:18), like Jesus, who seems to acknowledge his disciples as children (τέκνα θεοῦ and τεκνία) in Jn 1:12 and 13:33. The attitudes of personified Wisdom and Jesus to their audiences demonstrate an intimate relationship, like a father-child or teacher-student relationship, and these attitudes concretize the intimacy between God and His people through the medium of the teachings and images of Torah. In addition, Wisdom gives a warning about the coming future in Prov 1:15–19 and Prov 8:36; 9:12,18,144 and asks the people for repentance, just as Jesus asks them for repentance in Mt 3:2; Mk 6:12; Lk 5:32; 15:7, or for the dwelling or return to the loving word of God in Jn 15:4–10. Furthermore, personified Wisdom in Prov 8:17 tests her people or disciples until they love her, just as Jesus sanctifies his children with his word,

speeches of Wisdom. Some examples of the “I am” discourse of wisdom include: Prov 8:12, ‫י־ח ְכ ָמה‬ ָ֭ ִ‫( ֲ ֽאנ‬BHS), ἐγὼ ἡ σοφία (LXX) “I am Wisdom”; Sir, 24:17: ἐγὼ ὡς ἄμπελος ἐβλάστησα χάριν “I am like a vine putting out graceful shoots,” The evidence directly relates to the influence of sapiential material on the Fourth Gospel. While not an “I am” discourse, another important passage is Wis 7:26: ἀπαύγασμα γάρ ἐστιν φωτὸς ἀιδίου καὶ ἔσοπτρον ἀκηλίδωτον τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ ἐνεργείας καὶ εἰκὼν τῆς ἀγαθότητος αὐτοῦ. “She is a reflection of eternal light, untarnished mirror of God’s active power, image of his goodness.” In a similar manner, in the Fourth Gospel, the “I am” (ego eimi) sayings of Jesus are characterized variously as living bread, light, the gate, life, the true vine, and so on. Jn 6:35 Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς “I am the bread of life.”; 51 ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος ὁ ζῶν “I am the living bread” (NIV) 8:12 Ἐγώ εἰμι τὸ φῶς τοῦ κόσμου “I am the light of the world.” 10:7 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα τῶν προβάτων “I am the gate for the sheep.”; 9 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ θύρα “I am the gate” 11:14 Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ποιμὴν ὁ καλός “I am the good shepherd.” 11:25 Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἀνάστασις καὶ ἡ ζωή “I am the resurrection and the life.” 12:46 ἐγὼ φῶς εἰς τὸν κόσμον ἐλήλυθα, “I am a light comes into the world” 14:6 Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ὁδὸς καὶ ἡ ἀλήθεια καὶ ἡ ζωή “I am the way and the truth and the life.” 15:1 Ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος ἡ ἀληθινὴ “I am the true vine”; 5 ἐγώ εἰμι ἡ ἄμπελος “I am the vine” 144 Jesus even prophesies the apocalyptic events in detail in Mt 24, Mk 13 and Lk 21.

176

Chapter 2

love and truth in Jn 13:3–17; 15:1–17; 16:27; 17:17.145 Due to her speeches about truth, Wisdom is rejected in Prov 1:24–25. Similarly, Jesus is rejected in Jn 8:46, 59; 10:25 (cf. Mt 13:53–58; Mk 6:3; Lk 4:24–29; 14:34).146 In all, the images and activities of personified Wisdom in Prov 8 as a sage or teacher of Torah, have clear analogs in the images and activities of Jesus as a sage or teacher in the Gospels. This close relationship between the images of Jesus and of Wisdom substantiates that the God-like image of Jesus is related to the God-like images of personified Wisdom and Torah. In addition, as examined above, the similarities between the images and activities of personified Wisdom in a banquet, as described in Proverbs and Sirach substantiate the relationships of the images and activities of personified Wisdom to those of Jesus in the Gospels. It is instructive to recall the 145 Prov 8:17 (LXX): ἐγὼ τοὺς ἐμὲ φιλοῦντας ἀγαπῶ, οἱ δὲ ἐμὲ ζητοῦντες εὑρήσουσιν “I love those who love me, and those who seek me find me.” In Jn 15:15: οὐκέτι λέγω ὑμᾶς δούλους, ὅτι ὁ δοῦλος οὐκ οἶδεν τί ποιεῖ αὐτοῦ ὁ κύριος· ὑμᾶς δὲ εἴρηκα φίλους, ὅτι πάντα ἃ ἤκουσα παρὰ τοῦ πατρός μου ἐγνώρισα ὑμῖν “No longer do I call you servants, for the servant does not know what his master is doing; but I have called you friends, for all that I have heard from my Father I have made known to you”; Jn 16:27: αὐτὸς γὰρ ὁ πατὴρ φιλεῖ ὑμᾶς, ὅτι ὑμεῖς ἐμὲ πεφιλήκατε καὶ πεπιστεύκατε ὅτι ἐγὼ παρὰ [τοῦ] θεοῦ ἐξῆλθον “for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God.” A manner similar to the activities of personified Wisdom and Jesus can be gleaned from the late sapiential materials, such as Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon. See the English translations in Susan Cady, Wisdom’s Feast: Sophia in Study and Celebration, ed. Marian Ronan and Hal Taussig (Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1996), 202–8. Sir 4:12: ὁ ἀγαπῶν αὐτὴν ἀγαπᾷ ζωήν, καὶ οἱ ὀρθρίζοντες πρὸς αὐτὴν ἐμπλησθήσονται εὐφροσύνης “Woever loves her loves life” (208). Sir 6:20–22: 20 ὡς τραχεῖά ἐστιν σφόδρα τοῖς ἀπαιδεύτοις, καὶ οὐκ ἐμμενεῖ ἐν αὐτῇ ἀκάρδιος· 21 ὡς λίθος δοκιμασίας ἰσχυρὸς ἔσται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ, καὶ οὐ χρονιεῖ ἀπορρῖψαι αὐτήν 22 σοφία γὰρ κατὰ τὸ ὄνομα αὐτῆς ἐστιν καὶ οὐ πολλοῖς ἐστιν φανερά. “How very harsh she is to the undisciplined! The senseless man does not stay with her for long: 21 she will weigh on him like a heavy stone, and he will lose no time in throwing her off; 22 for discipline is true to her name” (202). Wis 6:17: ἀρχὴ γὰρ αὐτῆς ἡ ἀληθεστάτη παιδείας ἐπιθυμία, φροντὶς δὲ παιδείας ἀγάπη, 18 ἀγάπη δὲ τήρησις νόμων αὐτῆς, προσοχὴ δὲ νόμων βεβαίωσις ἀφθαρσίας “Of her the most sure beginning is the desire for discipline, care for discipline means loving her” (202). Wis 7:14: ἀνεκλιπὴς γὰρ θησαυρός ἐστιν ἀνθρώποις, ὃν οἱ κτησάμενοι πρὸς θεὸν ἐστείλαντο φιλίαν διὰ τὰς ἐκ παιδείας δωρεὰς συσταθέντες. “For she is an inexhaustible treasure to men, and those who acquire it win God’s friendship, commended as they are to him by the benefits of her teaching” (202). 146 Prov 1:24 (LXX): ἐπειδὴ ἐκάλουν καὶ οὐχ ὑπηκούσατε καὶ ἐξέτεινον λόγους καὶ οὐ προσείχετε, 25 ἀλλὰ ἀκύρους ἐποιεῖτε ἐμὰς βουλάς, τοῖς δὲ ἐμοῖς ἐλέγχοις ἠπειθήσατε, “Because I have called and you refused to listen, have stretched out my hand and no one has heeded,”; Jn 8:46: τίς ἐξ ὑμῶν ἐλέγχει με περὶ ἁμαρτίας; εἰ ἀλήθειαν λέγω, διὰ τί ὑμεῖς οὐ πιστεύετέ μοι; “Which one of you convicts me of sin? If I tell the truth, why do you not believe me?”; Jn 10:25: ἀπεκρίθη αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Εἶπον ὑμῖν καὶ οὐ πιστεύετε· τὰ ἔργα ἃ ἐγὼ ποιῶ ἐν τῷ ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρός μου ταῦτα μαρτυρεῖ περὶ ἐμοῦ. Jesus answered them, “I told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name bear witness about me.”

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

177

exegetical and semantic relationships between the personified Wisdom figures in Prov 8:22–31 and Prov 9, as examined earlier. The image of Wisdom building a house in Prov 9:1 is significantly connected to the God-like images and activities of personified Wisdom in Prov 8. The main goals of the activities of personified Wisdom and Jesus are profoundly related to sharing a banquet or festival in the house, which needs guests who enjoy the joyful and glorious banquet by eating (meat or bread) and drinking (wine or water).147 Woman Wisdom in Prov 9 invites people to eat meat and drink wine in her lavish banquet; whereas Woman Folly offers a poor banquet with bread and water.148 In a manner similar to Woman Wisdom, Jesus symbolizes himself as “bread” (e.g., Jn 6:35) and “water” (e.g., Jn 4:13–14) which metaphorically reflects life and salvation.149 Jesus also invites his disciples to eat bread as his body and to drink wine as his blood in the Last Supper (e.g., Mt 26:26–28; Lk 22:7–38; Mk 14:12–26).150 Lenzi argues that the words ‫ אהיה‬and ‫ שם אני‬in Prov 8: 22–31 implicitly allude to a “master” image of personified Wisdom, which is directly related to the image of Yahweh, who sends prophet-like messengers in an immediate context in Ex 3:14 and Isa 48:16.151 In this similar manner, Woman Wisdom in Prov 9 appears as a “master,” who actively sends maidens to invite and welcome guests to her banquet. This is comparable to the wedding banquet in Jesus’ parable of the Kingdom of God, 147 Kiperwasser, “A Bizarre Invitation to the King’s Banquet,” 147–81. 148 However, Woman Folly sitting on the sidewalk lures foolish pedestrians with false claims by giving bread and water, and by attracting them to fall into a deadly sin. 149 Jn 6:35: εἶπεν αὐτοῖς ὁ Ἰησοῦς, Ἐγώ εἰμι ὁ ἄρτος τῆς ζωῆς· ὁ ἐρχόμενος πρὸς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ πεινάσῃ, καὶ ὁ πιστεύων εἰς ἐμὲ οὐ μὴ διψήσει πώποτε. Then Jesus declared, “I am the bread of life. He who comes to me will never go hungry, and he who believes in me will never be thirsty.” (cf. Sir 24:19: προσέλθετε πρός με “come to me.”) Prov 9:4: ἐκκλινάτω πρός με “Let all who are simple come to my house!” (NIV); a water of life: Jn 4:13–14:13: ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτῇ, Πᾶς ὁ πίνων ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος τούτου διψήσει πάλιν 14 ὃς δ᾽ ἂν πίῃ ἐκ τοῦ ὕδατος οὗ ἐγὼ δώσω αὐτῷ, οὐ μὴ διψήσει εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα, ἀλλὰ τὸ ὕδωρ ὃ δώσω αὐτῷ γενήσεται ἐν αὐτῷ πηγὴ ὕδατος ἁλλομένου εἰς ζωὴν αἰώνιον. Jesus answered, “Everyone who drinks this water will be thirsty again, but whoever drinks the water I give him will never thirst. Indeed, the water I give him will become in him a spring of water welling up to eternal life.” (NIV). 150 The significant allusions to his body and blood as a bread and wine are as follows. Mt 26:26–28 Mk 14: 22–24 Lk 22:19–20

26 λαβὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἄρτον, Λάβετε φάγετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. 27 λαβὼν ποτήριον καὶ εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν 28 τὸ αἷμά μου, ἁμαρτιῶν. 22 λαβὼν ἄρτον, Λάβετε, τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου. 23 λαβὼν ποτήριον εὐχαριστήσας ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς, 24 τὸ αἷμά μου 19 λαβὼν ἄρτον Τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου 20 αἵματί μου

151 Lenzi, “Proverbs 8:22–31,” 711–14. It is notable that there is a textual nexus between ‫“ אהיה‬I am” in Prov 8:22–31 and “I am Who I am” in Exod 3:14. Cf. Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 288.

178

Chapter 2

in which a king sends his servants to invite his people (Mt 22:1–14).152 The texts connected to Jesus’ Last Supper (Jn 13:1–32) in the Fourth Gospel, in contrast to the Synoptics, do not overtly mention the eucharistic contents of the remembrance of Jesus’ body and blood. However, in Jn 6:41–58, Jesus explicitly asserts his “flesh and blood” as the true food and drink.153 The “flesh and blood” of Incarnate Logos, i.e., Jesus, alludes to the expression of “food and drink” in the account of personified Wisdom.154 As previously noted, the image of Jesus inviting his disciples and people to his Last Supper is reminiscent of the image of Woman Wisdom’s invitation in Prov 9.155 Even if Jesus did not provide meat as Wisdom did, Jesus mentions that the bread (cf. ‫ ַמ ֹּ֣צות‬in Ex 12:15) is his flesh. Jesus’ statement also reminds us of the regulations about “the unleavened bread” and “the blood of the lambs” in Passover in Ex 12:6–15. Moreover, Jesus is the “Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn 1:29). The symbolism of bread and wine appears to be enough to remind the audience of Jesus’ sacrifice of his flesh and blood for his people’s sins. The symbolic connotations of the meat and wine of personified Wisdom are vividly associated not only with Jesus’ sacrifice and the suffering of his flesh and blood on the cross but also with what Jesus gave his guests and people through his sacrifice: life, truth, and wisdom. The sacrifice of Jesus giving his body (flesh) and blood as bread 152 Kiperwasser (158–64) argues that this parable of Jesus appears similar to the literary features of the parables of the banquet in rabbinic sources, which combines an eschatological motif and a narrative element. The rhetorical, exegetical, and theological features in the parable of Jesus can be gleaned from the literary forms and traditional narratives, which are found in rabbinic midrashim and in the religious dialogue between the Rabbis and Church Fathers. See Brad H. Young, Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching (New York: Paulist Press, 1989) and idem, The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers, 1998). 153 The rhetorical analogy of “food and drink” and “flesh and blood” also appears to be terminologically, phraseologically, and theologically developed in the Gospel of John and in even early Jewish sources, e.g., Prov 9, Sir 1:1–4; 15:3; 24:8, 19–21; 32:1–13, as well as Wis 9:1–2, 4. These passages in Sirach and the Wisdom of Solomon are related to a concept of eating and drinking in relation to personified Wisdom, which provides the righteous with ἄρτον συνέσεως “bread of understanding” and ὕδωρ σοφίας “water of wisdom” in a banquet. In this sense, the character of banquet is also linked to imagery of eating and drinking. A motif of eating and drinking in relation to activities in the ministry of Jesus as the personified Logos in the Prologue, seems to provide significant evidence of the relationship to personified Wisdom. 154 Clifford, in Proverbs, 32, observes, “Jesus speaks in long discourses,” and “Jesus recruits disciples” and “gives the bread [and wine] of life” in a similar form to that of Woman Wisdom. Cf. Brown, John I–XII, 32. 155 Jesus however promises, “never thirst again,” while personified Wisdom in Sir 4:19–21 alludes to the repetition of their thirsts. See Keener, 1:682.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

179

and wine endows Jesus with the image of savior and the Lord providing life and wisdom. Furthermore, Jesus in Lk 11:49 controversially appears to identify himself as personified Wisdom, who is a wise sage knowledgeable of the Torah. Jesus speaks of ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ “the Wisdom of God,” as he says, “For this reason also the Wisdom of God said, ‘I will send to them prophets and apostles, and some of them they will kill and some they will persecute.’” In Lk 7:35, Jesus also refers directly to the Wisdom of God: καὶ ἐδικαιώθη ἡ σοφία ἀπὸ πάντων τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς “Yet Wisdom is vindicated by all her children.” In Mt 11:19b, we read, “Wisdom is justified by her deeds.” Regarding the parable of the children playing in the marketplace, Marion J. Suggs explains that the “men of this generation” are like spoiled children, and John and even Jesus are Wisdom’s children.156 However, a direct relationship between personified Wisdom and Jesus is still controversial to prove by textual evidence. Nonetheless, it becomes clear that wisdom in the verses in Mt 11:19 and Lk 7:35, appears not only as a property of Jesus, which is proven by his deeds and miracles, but also a property of God, i.e., a divine wisdom or even God Himself as it appears as a subject of “deeds,” with personality.157 By referring to “children,” as in Lk 7:35, the image of wisdom more clearly appears similar to the father-like or divine-like images of personified Wisdom who teaches “children” in Prov 8:31–32. In Mt 12:42 and 23:34, Jesus also alludes to the images and activities of Wisdom who sent prophets and apostles, while implying a self-recognition that his wisdom is greater than Solomon’s wisdom and is the Wisdom of God Himself.158 These strikingly similar images and activities of two figures provide critical implications for their theological and phenomenological relationships regarding the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. Prov 9 is critical for understanding the core message of these passages in the Gospels. By making the contrastive parallel between Woman Wisdom and Woman Folly, Wisdom’s ultimate purpose is to invite the gullible and foolish to 156 Suggs, Wisdom, Christology, and Law in Matthew’s Gospel, 35; Mack, The Christ and Jewish Wisdom in Charlesworth et al., The Messiah, 211–12. As Mack notes, “The shift in characterization from Jesus as sage (early layer Q) to Jesus as prophet (later layer Q) can be understood as an exercise in wisdom mythology” (212). This connection between the images of Jesus as a child of wisdom and as a prophet of wisdom also appears to be aligned with the conception of Jesus as the Son of God. 157 William F. Albright and C. S. Mann, Mathew, 139–40. 158 Suggs (39) connects it to the context in Wis 7:27: “In every generation she passes into holy souls and makes them friends of God, and prophets,” while explaining “the idea of Wisdom’s persistent quest for men by means of her envoys.”

180

Chapter 2

her banquet and to give them wisdom and life. The ultimate aim of her banquet is to give life itself and instruct in the way of life in contrast to Woman Folly’s way of death. The images and activities of personified Wisdom, who tries to invite the gullible and foolish to her banquet, are parallel to the images of Jesus, who invites not only his disciples but also the gullible, such as the “gluttonous man and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners” (Lk 7:34).159 The expression regarding the hidden efforts and wise activities of Wisdom to lead people to the way of light, truth and life, in Lk 7:35, alludes to a similar motif concerning the hidden efforts and wise activities of Jesus. It allows us to infer that his guests who finally will become his children will also vindicate Jesus’ activities and accomplishments. Interestingly, the images of activities of Jesus as a master sending servants (or maidens) to invite people in Lk 14:15–21 show particular semantic similarities to the images of the Woman Wisdom as a mistress in Prov 9:3.160 The descriptions of Jesus as a master (or Lord) in a banquet can be similarly found, albeit in different words, in several passages in the NT, such as Mt 22:1–14, where Jesus is depicted as a master or Lord, and the image of a banquet or wedding feast as an emblem of the Kingdom of God is often used.161 In all, the activities and images of personified Wisdom in Proverbs 1, 8, and 9, as an adult teacher or a sage or as a master in a banquet, are directly connected with those images and activities of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. These intertextual and theological relationships between the activities of personified Wisdom and Jesus substantiate not only their semantic similarities but also their shared images as a sage (or teacher) teaching the Torah or a master (or Lord) of the secrets of Torah. The personification and hypostatization of the mystical concept of wisdom, as examined earlier, provides a critical insight into the symbolization and mythologization of the image of Torah as God-like.

159 Lk 7:34: ἐλήλυθεν ὁ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐσθίων καὶ πίνων, καὶ λέγετε, Ἰδοὺ ἄνθρωπος φάγος καὶ οἰνοπότης, φίλος τελωνῶν καὶ ἁμαρτωλῶν. “The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and you say, ‘Here is a glutton and a drunkard, a friend of tax collectors and sinners’.” 160 ἀπέστειλεν τοὺς ἑαυτῆς δούλους in Prov 9:3: “She has sent out her maids” (NIV); ἀπέστειλεν τὸν δοῦλον αὐτοῦ τῇ ὥρᾳ τοῦ δείπνου εἰπεῖν τοῖς κεκλημένοις in Lk 14:17: “He sent his servant to tell those who had been invited”; Prov 9:5: φάγετε τῶν ἐμῶν ἄρτων “Come, eat my food.”; Μακάριος ὅστις φάγεται ἄρτον ἐν τῇ βασιλείᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ in Lk 14:15: Jesus said, “Blessed is one who who will eat at the feast in the kingdom of God!” In addition, like Jesus in Lk 14:19–21, Woman Wisdom warns of the foolish responses to and decisions regarding the temptations of Woman Folly (Prov 9:17–18). 161 Mt 22:4 (NIV): “Tell those who have been invited that I have prepared my dinner; my oxen and my fattened cattle have been butchered and everything is ready; come to the wedding banquet.’”

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

181

Consequently, this examination shows that the images of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels appear similar to the God-like images and activities of personified Wisdom as a sage or a master, which symbolically represent the specific actions and images of God and are centered around the God-like image of Torah. This also corroborates a profound relationship between the images and activities of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah which all authenticate the existence of the God-like image of Torah. Specifically, it shows that the formulation of the God-like image of the hypostatic notions of Torah is grounded in mythic and anthropomorphic imaginations, which utilize the images and symbols of wisdom, which are manifest in early Jewish and Christian literature. It also provides some critical implications not only for the conceptual development of Jewish Wisdom, as a pattern and mode of thinking – that is a model – which was prevalent throughout early Judaism and Christianity, but also regarding an implicit nexus between Christology and Jewish wisdom mythology. In summary, this investigation demonstrates not only the developmental process of and profound interactions between the Greek Logos-centered tradition and the Jewish Wisdom-centered tradition but also the existence of a specific literary and exegetical strategy that formulates the roles and images of Torah. The angelic image of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos and memra, appears to function as a mediator between God and human beings, based in a Logos-centered tradition. In contrast to the son-like and angelic images of personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬in the Logos-centered tradition, the images of personified Wisdom, Jesus in the Synoptics, and shekhinah in the Wisdom-centered tradition appear close to a God-like being or divine entity, based on the mystical conception of Torah. Specifically, regarding features of Wisdom and Logos, the rabbinic sages actively appear to adopt their angelic images against the backdrop of the concept of Torah, while regarding the features of memra and shekhinah, they actively appear to adopt their divine-like images against the backdrop of the concept of Torah. In this vein, it is also notable that the concepts and images of Wisdom and Logos appears to have not only a direct nexus with those of Torah, whereas the concepts and images of memra and shekhinah appear to have an indirect association with those of Torah. There is, thus, a critical difference between the angelic and God-like images of Torah. The angelic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah appear as visualized mediator, whereas the God-like images of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah appear as seemingly God Himself without a mediator or, at most, as a hidden mediator mythologized and symbolized in mythic and anthropomorphic

182

Chapter 2

descriptions, as emphasized earlier. Significantly, this substantiates the existence of a particular literary and hermeneutic strategy, which creates and formulates the images of Torah, and thereby explains an intimate relationship between the hypostatic notions of Torah and God, and, furthermore, as we will see further, expresses a religious experience through the hypostatic notions of Torah as a mediator which connects human beings and God.162 3.3 A Messianic Image of the Hypostatic Notions of Torah Like the angelic and God-like images of Torah, the formulation of a messianic image of Torah is grounded in the messianic concepts implicitly manifest in the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah. As I will show, the messianic concepts and images of Torah are profoundly intertwined with the angelic and God-like images of Torah that I examined earlier. To the end, I will examine in detail the explicit and implicit manifestations of a messianic image of Torah in relation to the angelic and God-like images of Torah within the two categories: Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. 3.3.1 A Messianic Image Related to an Angelic Image of Torah I begin with a messianic image connected to the angelic image of Torah, which can be found in the images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions, such as prsonified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra. Intriguingly, the son-like and angelic images of personified Wisdom, in the interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22–31, which we examined earlier, also appear as messianic images in salvific roles as divine agents for God’s works in the creation.163 In particular, we have seen that he son-like and angelic images of personified Wisdom are profoundly related not only to the “first born” or “elder son” image of Philo’s Logos in relation to the Image of God but also to the “king” image, which allegorically conceptualizes a messianic image of the 162 Jérôme Moreau, Personnification et effacement: le paradoxe du livre de la Sagesse, in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, ed. Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez (Leuven: Peeters, 2021), 259–70. Moreau notes the literary personification and hypostatization of wisdom, and its created images reflect a religious experience and hermeneutical strategy in which the authors expressed by utilizing the Hebraic and Hellenistic terms, such as wisdom and logos, as a linguistic apparatus. This also means that the authors sought to understand and explain knowledge and actions of God, and thereby to experience an intimate relationship (i.e., close communion) with God. I will further discuss later in this study the relationship between the hypostatic notions and religious experience. 163 Sinnott, 161–62. The Wisdom figure (Wis 1:1; 6:10) is also imaginatively related to the righteous and salvific ones (Wis 3:8; 4:16; 5:1–2).

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

183

Logos.164 In the Hebrew Bible, the son-like and kingly images are clearly connected to messianic ones. For example, David – a proto-messianic figure – is described as the “firstborn” or “the highest of the kings” promised by God in Ps 89:27.165 It is worth noting that scholarship on Mesopotamian and Egyptian religions has shown that the “image of God” typically appears in kingly images in the Assyro-Babylonian religion and thought, and the son-like divine images, which symbolize a divinization of the king as a “son” of God, explicitly appear in the Egyptian religion and thought.166 It is remarkable that the application of the term “son” of God to the Messiah in early Jewish sources chiefly appears to be connected to the status and image of a ‘king’ who descended from the physical Davidic line.167 In addition, we can see various messianic figures and their son-like images in the Second Temple Jewish sources and rabbinic literature, including the Talmud and midrash, as well as in early Christianity.168 In rabbinic and targumic literature, such as b. Sukk. 52a, the image of David is in detail described as an ideal messianic figure.169 Interestingly, the ideal messianic figure also appears to convey the images of “king” and “son” of God as in Ps 2:7–8. This synthetic feature can be gleaned from the images of Philo’s Logos, which combines the concept and image of “king” and “son” of God.170 Philo, in his interpretations of Num 24:7 in 164 Fox, “ʾAmon again,” 699–702. Cf. 1 Kgs 10:1, 5; Esth 2:7; Num 11:12; Isa 49:23; Fox, Proverbs 1–9, 285–88; Aitken, “Proverbs,” 82. 165 Borgen, The Philo Index, 303. In Christianity, Jesus allegedly appears as a symbolic and figurative firstborn like Isaac in Gen 22 instead of Ishmael and like Jacob in Gen 25, 27 instead of Esau in light of the Hebrew Bible. 166 Jean G. Heintz, “Royal Traits and Messianic Figures: A Thematic and Iconographical Approach,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 52–66. 167 John M. Allegro, Qumran Cave 4.1 (DJD 5; Oxford: Clarendon, 1968), 53–57; George Brooke, Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context (Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1985). The language of sonship, in 4Q174 1–3 1:10–12, appears to be applied to the king expected at the end of times. There are also some allusions in these biblical texts to the divine sonship of the king: 1 Chr 28:9–10; 2 Chr 7:17–20; the royal Psalms (e.g., Ps 2, Ps 110), 2 Sam 7:11–14, which is repeated in 1 Chr 17:13–14 and 22:10–11, and clearly evoked in Ps 89:27–30 in relation to the dynastic oracle of Nathan in 4Q504 (= 4QDibHam2) 2 V, 6–10. In addition, the mythological languages of the royal Psalms (Ps 2, Ps 110) provide the textual basis for the development of the messianic idea at the end of times at Qumran. The concept of king generally conveys a son-like image in ancient Near Eastern literature. 168 Craig A. Evans, “Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity,” JGRChJ 3 (2006): 9–10. 169 There is a midrash interpretation of Messiah ben Yosef (Zech 12: 10–12) who was killed by Gentiles in Gen. Rab. 44, and Messiah ben David (Ps 2:7–8) who receives eternal life (Ps 21:4). 170 Ibid.

184

Chapter 2

Praem. xvi, 95–97, creates a messianic figure by assimilating his conception of the Logos with the biblical concepts of the messianic figures, such as “king” and “son” or “firstborn” in the Greek term πρωτόγονον.171 The kingly images of Philo’s Logos (e.g., Leg. II. xxi, 86) appear to profoundly symbolize the authority and powers (i.e., spiritual and immaterial entities) of God as they are revealed in the images of Torah and personified Wisdom (e.g., Wis 7:25).172 In this regard, Philo explains that the “son” and “king” images ultimately echo a messianic role of the Logos by expounding the descriptions which allude to the personal Messiah of the prophecy of Isaiah (Isa 11:1–10).173 As Wolfson points out, Philo’s messianic figure does not reflect a historical or personal character who placates the expectation of a militant Messiah, even though, in the “native” Jewish tradition, the messianic figure implies exactly that – a political and nationalistic figure.174 Nonetheless, the messianic figure in Praem. xiv, 79–84 appears close to a Judaized messianic being who conveys the ultimate purpose of the Torah related to the Logos rather than an abstract philosophical concept related to the Stoic Logos.175 As Goodenough notes, Philo’s messianic conception of the Logos appears to be profoundly involved with a historical and political context, which explains its apocalyptic and eschatological features.176 In this context, Wolfson and Hengel show that Philo strategically esotericizes the messianic concept of the Logos in order to solve a tension between a present political condition and an eschatological ideal.177 For instance, Philo integrates a messianic prophecy about the “man” (in Mos. II. i–vii, 1–44) who echoes the features of the personal Messiah, into the Jewish eschatological ideal and, in doing so, relates it to the centralization of the Mosaic Law, i.e., the Torah.178 In Leg. I. viii, 19–20, Philo directly identifies the Logos with the 171 See Philo, Opif. xxvi, 79–81; Conf. xiv, 62–63. Philo connects the images of a “man” to the images of “His first-born” as a messianic figure who is related to the Logos. 172 Compare Philo, Leg. II. xxi, 86: ἡ σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ ἐστιν, ἣν ἄκραν καὶ πρωτίστην ἔτεμεν ἀπὸ τῶν ἑαυτοῦ δυνάμεων to Wis 7:25 ἀτμὶς γάρ ἐστιν τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ δυνάμεως. 173 Wolfson, Philo, 1:415–17. 174 Ibid., 2:407, 413–4. 175 Philo, Praem. xiv, 79–84; Leg. I. xix, 65. 176 Erwin R. Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938), 25. For Goodenough, the messianic figure appears close to a pre-Christian figure who realizes the covenant. 177 Wolfson, Philo, 2:395; Martin Hengel, “Messianische Hoffnung und politischer ‘Radikalismus’ in der jüdisch-hellistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdisch-hellistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan” 115–17 n. Chr., in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East, ed. David Hellholm (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 679–83. 178 Géza Vermès, Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies, 2nd rev. ed. (Leiden: Brill, 1973), 159–60.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

185

Torah, i.e., the Laws of Moses (i.e., divine commandments).179 Philo’s descriptions of the personal Messiah are eventually connected to the perfect activities of the Logos (in Somn. I. xi, 64–67), which is identified with the Word of God, i.e., divine Torah.180 It becomes evident that Philo dealt with biblical and rabbinic (or Jewish traditional) discussions through the Logos-centered (i.e., middle-Platonic) tradition. In all, this examination shows that Philo’s Logos plays a critical role not only as an allegorized designator for those who understood the Law of Moses to affirm the biblical and rabbinic visions of messianism, but also as an allegorized mediator who accomplishes an ideal state governed by Stoic ideas and the teachings of the Torah.181 This demonstrates that Philo’s Logos appears as a new messianic image, combining a “son-like” figure (which alludes to an angelic mediator as examined earlier), a messianic figure, and the messianic implications of the Torah, thereby implicitly creating a messianic image of Torah that focuses on intellectual deliverance as well as salvific and eschatological messages. On the basis of this examination, it is imperative to note that the messianic image of Philo’s Logos, which appears close to a son-like and angelic image of Torah, is primarily related to the son-like and angelic images of personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31.182 As expounded earlier, the “firstborn” image of Philo’s Logos appears very similar to the particular image of a pre-existent Logos-Son of the Johannine Logos (Jn 1:1–18) who accompanies God the Father.183 In addition, we can see critical references to a messianic image of Jesus in the Synoptics, such as a direct messianic genealogy of Jesus as the “firstborn” (πρωτότοκος) of the Virgin Mary (cf. Mt 1:25; Lk 2:7), and an indirect messianic description, which contains both son-like and kingly images and which mention the Son of God and the Kingdom of God (e.g., Lk 7:31–35; Mt 11:16–20; 25–30).184 The son-like and angelic images of Jesus, e.g., “the Son 179 Wolfson, Philo, 1:255–58. 287 ff. Philo’s allegorization of the Laws of Moses to the Logos, which is based on personified Wisdom, provides a critical insight into the personification and hypostatization of the Word of God (memra) and shekhinah. 180 Goodenough, The Politics of Philo Judaeus, 115–19. 181 Philo, Praem. xxix, 169–71. 182 Hurowitz, “Nursling, Advisor, Architect?,” 398–99. Hurowitz also analyzes the connotations of a son-like or royal imagery of personified Wisdom in the poetic context. 183 Dunn, The Parting of the Ways, 220–29; Runia, Philo in Early Christian Literature, 78–83; Charles H. Dodd, The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968), 69–71, 73, 278, 285. As Dodd acknowledges, despite the striking differences, both Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos appear to be derived from personified Wisdom, in the creation context, under Hellenistic Jewish thought. 184 L. Michael White, in Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite, 1st ed. (New York: HarperOne, 2010), 317, points out, “The Jesus of the Gospel of Matthew is understood as the apocalyptic

186

Chapter 2

of God” (Jn 12:34; 11:27; 20:31) and “the Son of Man” (Jn 12:34), have both an angelic (i.e., heavenly agent) and messianic (i.e., salvific and eschatological) implication of giving “eternal life” (Jn 5:21–40) in a manner similar to the messianic images of Philo’s Logos. Furthermore, the biblical and rabbinic concept of memra, which has a salvific message of the Word of God, as examined earlier, involves the salvation of Israel (e.g., 1 Sam 3:21; Isa 45:17), and is correlated to the “savior” image of personified Wisdom and Incarnate Jesus in connection to a messianic image of Torah.185 This examination shows the process by which the messianic (i.e., salvific) image of the hypostatic notions, which appears close to an angelic image of Torah, was formed. This substantiates the profound intertextual, exegetical, and theological relationships between the messianic ideas and images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, which are manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources. More interestingly, we can find a relationship and interaction between the messianic ideas and figures and the hypostatic notions associated with the images of Torah in the Dead Sea Scrolls. After the discovery in Qumran in 1947, many scholars attempted to examine the intertextual and theological relationships between the messianic and eschatological aspects of Philo’s works, the Qumran texts, and the NT, including the Gospels. As James H. Charlesworth argues, referring to the writings of Philo and Josephus, the Qumran texts appear to be the work of the extremely conservative branch of the two supposed branches of Essenes, who enthusiastically held messianic and eschatological hope for a restoration of God’s covenant in accordance with biblical prophecies.186 The Qumran texts provide critical insights into not only the hisMessiah form the line of David.” The title “Son of God” facilitates a peculiar relation between the Messiah and God in traditional Jewish ways in Mathew and John, whereas the title “Son of God” appears not to dramatically function in Mark. Despite these witnesses, the relationship between them and the Son of God is still ambiguous and suspicious in the Gospels since the title “Son of God” is limitedly used to refer to the Messiah. See Wis 3:1–3: “The souls of the righteous are in the hand of God, and no torment will ever touch them. They seemed, in the eyes of the foolish, they seemed to have died …. But they are at peace.” 185 As examined earlier, the concept of memra in Aramaic is connected to the depiction of the Word of God as an extension of Himself in the Hebrew Bible. The translations of Gen 1:1–3, 2:3 in Tg. Neof. imply that the memra is not just a distinct essence apart from God, but a being which is with God and acting as God. This corroborates that the memra is not only the revelation of God’s presence in the Hebrew Bible but is also the anticipated divine Word of the Lord in Jewish thought, well-known throughout the targums. 186 Charlesworth, “The Fourth Evangelist,” 161. The eschatological and messianic concepts of the Qumran texts appear to be fundamentally driven by the expectation of a covenantal restoration in a specific social and religious context.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

187

torical and ideological backgrounds of the times of Jesus, early Christianity, and multi-faceted Judaism, but also the messianic ideas of early Jewish and Christian sources.187 Hengel compares and analyzes numerous linguistic and theological parallels between the Qumran texts and the Gospel of John, such as ideological and eschatological themes (e.g., dualism, predestination, and messianism), which reflect the historical and theological contexts of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods.188 The relationship between the Johannine and Qumran communities, which was deliberated upon by many scholars from different angles and perspectives, is primarily based on the chronological proximity of the closing period of the Qumran community with the starting period of the early Christian communities. Shemaryahu Talmon notes that “The Qumran scrolls reflect the creedal concepts of a group of Jewish extremists who propounded a millenarian messianism.”189 He argues that the Qumran community was an organized separate society and envisioned an organized form of community roles. The Johannine community, by contrast, was not a socially homogeneous group defined by clear criteria of status, but an organized movement of disciples around a master and guide, which oriented itself towards the surrounding hostile world through the announcement of the message of Gospel.190 Still, despite differences in the communal organization of the two groups, their closely related historical and ideological backgrounds led to messianic and eschatological affinities. Against this theoretical background, we can infer that the son-like, angelic, and messianic images of the hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom, 187 Ibid., 161–63. Some scholars, after the recovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, attempted to discover linguistic and theological parallels between the Gospel of John and the Qumran texts, while excluding external influences, i.e., the influences of multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, and rabbinic) Judaism on the Johannine Logos. However, the evidence from the Scrolls still does not seem to elucidate entirely the backgrounds of the Johannine Logos, even if these examinations give a critical insight into the study of the Johannine community. In this context, it is desirable to reexamine the theological and philosophical backgrounds, and the compositional and exegetical intentions of the author of the Johannine Prologue in the Johannine community in addition to examining the role of Palestinian Judaism in the formation of the Johannine context. 188 Hengel, The Johannine Question, trans. John Bowden (London: SCM, 1989), 111, 281. 189 Shemaryahu Talmon, “The Concepts of Masiah and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity ed. James H. Charlesworth (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 101. 190 Destro Adriana, and Mauro Pesce, “The Gospel of John and the Community Rule of Qumran: A Comparison of Systems,” in Judaism in Late Antiquity Vol. 2: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls, ed. Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton (Leiden: Brill, 2001), 219–20.

188

Chapter 2

Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos (i.e., Jesus), appear to be closely associated with the son-like and kingly images of the messianic figures in the Qumran texts.191 Indeed, we can first see numerous cases in which “son” and “king” images are related to a messianic figure in the Qumran texts.192 For example, the messianic implications of Ps 89:27–30 are developed in the Qumran texts. These include a “son,” as the “first born” (‫)בכור‬, “the beloved” (‫ לידיד‬in line 1, and ‫ הידיד‬in line 2) in 4Q458 1, and a “king,” who is “anointed with the oil of kingship” (‫ )משיח בשמן מלכות‬in 4Q458 2 ii 6. The description of the king explicitly refers to the kingly or royal Messiah. The examples of the messianic figures in the Qumran texts (e.g., 1QSa), are clearly linked to an “anointed” Davidic King-Messiah. As Tryggve N. D. Mettinger explains, the Davidic King-Messiah, who is described as both a “king” (i.e., divine kingship) and a “son” of God (i.e., divine sonship) in Ps 2 and 110, and in the Davidic covenant in Ps 89 (e.g., 4Q Ps 89), refers to a figuratively angelicized being who is the Image of God, i.e., the First Man (Urmensch).193 The conception of divine sonship also appears in the description of the “anointed,” i.e., messianic figure, in 1QSa 2:11–14 of the Rule of the Congregation, who is “begotten” by God within the community.194 It is worth noting that the divine sonship, ascribed to the children of Israel as a whole, in the Qumran texts is an intensification of the covenantal context in the Hebrew Bible. Divine sonship also conveys a “kingly” image in rabbinic literature and is explicitly related to a “king” image of the personal Messiah in the Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha, such as Enoch and IV Esdras.195 It is also notable that, in the Qumran texts, a historical and messianic figure, who is prepared for the covenantal deliverance of His people, takes on a salvific image combined with the “son” and “king” images Interestingly, as Devorah Dimant notes, the Qumran images of the messianic figures, which reflect both an apocalyptic and eschatological sensibility, similarly appear in the messianic 191 Brendan Byrne, ‘Sons of God’ – ‘Seed of Abraham’ – A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of all Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background (PhD diss., Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1979), 13–18; James L. Kugel, “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation,” DSD 5 (1998): 119–48. 192 Jonas C. Greenfield et al., Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD 22 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996), 165–84. The “son of God” in the Qumran texts, such as 4Q246 (= 4QapocrDan ac) ii, 1–6, mirrors the language of divine sonship, which symbolically designates a messianic figure. Divine sonship in the Qumran texts is applied and expanded to the expected eschatological King, i.e., Messiah, understood as an individual character. 193 Tryggve N. D. Mettinger, King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings (Lund: Gleerup, 1976), 254–93. 194 Dominique Barthélemy, Józef T. Milik, and Roland De Vaux, eds., Qumran Cave 1 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 108–18, 127. 195 See 3 En. cv, 2; IV (2) Esdras vii, 28–29; xiii, 32, 37, 52; xiv, 9.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

189

ideas and images in the Gospel of John.196 As Charlesworth also emphasizes, despite fundamentally different theological tendencies, the shared features of the messianic images and descriptions in the Qumran texts and the Gospel of John shed light on a messianic and eschatological conceptualization rooted in a similar biblical interpretation and exegetical practice.197 In a manner similar to the messianic figures in the Qumran texts, who have an angelic or son-like image, we can see that the images of Jesus in the Gospel of John take on both a son-like (or angelic) image and a salvific (or messianic) image, such as “the Son of God” (e.g., Jn 11:27, 20:31), and “the Son of Man” (e.g., Jn 12:34). This suggests that the image of Jesus, which combines the angelic and son-like images, is related to messianic figures, such as a Davidic King-Messiah in the Qumran texts, who combines the son-like and kingly images. In addition, we can infer that the messianic figures in the Qumran texts, who combine the angelic, salvific, and kingly images, appear to be profoundly related to the angelic and son-like images of personified Wisdom in Prov 8 and Philo’s Logos, which all are identified with Torah, on the basis of the intertextual and theological relationships between the hypostatic notions linked with the concepts and images of Torah, which were examined earlier. As noted, this examination concentrates on the phenomenological associations and implicit compatibilities between the images of the hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, rather than on proving direct philological and historical evidence regarding the links between them. In this sense, it shows that these features of the messianic figures associated with Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, as well as the messianic figures in the Qumran texts, are intertwined with the angelic and son-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, which convey a messianic and salvific image of Torah. It also demonstrates that the angelic, son-like, and kingly images of the messianic figures, which are manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, are intertwined with the images of various hypostatic notions associated with the concept of Torah. Taken together, these findings substantiate the existence and significance of a messianic image of Torah.

196 Devorah Dimant, “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspective,” in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997), ed. James H. Charlesworth (North R. Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998), 55, 160; Marinus de Jonge, Jesus, the Servant-Messiah (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991), 777. 197 Charlesworth, “The Concept of the Messiah,” 163–64.

190

Chapter 2

3.3.2 A Messianic Image Related to a God-Like Image of Torah Interestingly, we can also find, among the hypostatic notions of Torah, a different kind of a messianic image, i.e., a God-like one. Mack and Neusner analyze and compare the divine-like images of Jewish (i.e., personified) Wisdom in early Jewish thought to that of Jesus in early Christian thought, while also examining their priestly, prophetic, and messianic images.198 They investigate the messianic and divine-like images symbolized and mythologized in the thought and narrative of Jesus and Jewish Wisdom and their relationships with the images of Torah, by analyzing the shared messianic themes (e.g., the Kingdom of God or “World to Come”) found in early Jewish and Christian sources. The salvific and divine-like images of the messianic figures in the Qumran texts shed light on the relationships between the images of the messianic figures in early Jewish and Christian sources. As Géza Vermès notes, “The coming of the prophet and the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel,” mentioned in CD (Cairo Damascus Document) 19:10–11, 1QS 9:11, and 1QSb 15–21, implies a multi-faceted (a kingly, priestly, and prophetic) messianic figure.199 Charlesworth also points out that a supernatural or eschatological figure, who is different from the son-like and kingly messianic figure (e.g., David or the Messiah of Israel), also emerges in the Qumran texts and in many Jewish texts, including rabbinic literature around the first centuries CE, following the Second Temple period.200 The images of the messianic (divine-like or eschatological) figures can be classified as two models: a priestly figure connected to the Messiah of Aaron, and a prophetic figure related to Moses, Elijah or the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran community.201 As Talmon and Charlesworth argue, the peculiarity of 198 Mack, The Christ and Jewish Wisdom, 192–93. Neusner criticizes the research for being limited to only analyzing the messianic figures in Jewish apocalyptic literature as the background of Christological studies. He emphasizes the necessity of thoroughly investigating various etymological and terminological usages related to the messianic and eschatological implications of the kingdom of God or the “world to come” in terms of a broader apocalyptic hypothesis. See Jacob Neusner, Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. W. Green and E. Frerichs (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), preface, ix–xiv. 199 Géza Vermès, The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English (London: Penguin Books, 2004), 159. In addition, the three images of Messiah are depicted in the Damascus Document in 4Q266 and 4Q268. 200 Charlesworth, “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James Brownson, Michael T. Davis, Steven. J. Kraftchick, and Alan F. Segal (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 3–35. 201 Michael O. Wise, A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11 (Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990); Hammer Reuven, Sifre: A Tannaitic

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

191

the Qumran “Twin Messianism” implies a “richly varied phenomenon,” which reflects the messianic ideas and sociopolitical realities of Second Temple Judaism.202 Intriguingly, Michael O. Wise notes that the “Branch of David” mentioned in Frag. 5 in 4Q285 is connected to a suffering and executed Messiah, which covertly alludes to a prophetic image of the Interpreter of the Law as well as to a priestly image of the Messiah of Aaron.203 The messianic figure of high priest at “the end of days,” which can be found in Melchiẓedek Midrash in 11Q13, appears as a divine-like and priestly Messiah who will proclaim the “Day of Atonement” for all the Sons of Light.204 More interestingly, in the Community Rule in 1QS 3:18–4:1 and 4:23–26, a dualistic idea of a good and evil spirit (e.g., the Prince of Light and the Angel of Darkness) is deliberately developed as part of an eschatological messianism in the context of division and conflict between the Wicked Priest, as betrayer and violator of the Covenant with God, and the Teacher of Righteousness.205 Floyd V. Filson asserts that various messianic figures, including the Teacher of Righteous, in the Qumran texts commonly appear as eschatological figures, rather than historical ones.206 Although the Teacher of Righteousness himself in Geniza B 20 does not appear precisely as a historical messianic figure, there Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986), Piska 342. I–V, pp. 401–404. The image and roles of Elijah as an angelic mediator of wisdom also appear as a priestly and prophetic figure who is a bearer of wisdom in the Tannaitic traditions, and thereby strengthen the affinity between Elijah and Moses which reflects a combination between the Torah-centered and Apocalyptic-centered wisdom traditions. See also Bennema, “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition,” 64–67. 202 Talmon, “The Concepts of Masiah and Messianism in Early Judaism,” 104–5; Charlesworth, “The Concept of the Messiah,” 191. 203 Michael O. Wise, The Dead Sea Scrolls-Revised Edition: A New Translation, ed. Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook (New York: Harper Collins, 2005), 293. Schiffman, in “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 118–19; 124–25, examines, based on the textual analysis of 1QS 8:15B–9:11 and 4QDb, CD 14:19, two possibilities of a messianic vision in the Qumran texts: only one Messiah, or a “two-Messiah scheme,” which distinguishes between the present and the coming of a messianic era. The rise of a Davidic Messiah in “the end of days,” in the two-Messiah scheme, is prominent in the interpretation of Isa 10:28–32 ( frags. 5–6), and Isa 11:1–5 ( frags. 8–10, lines 11–24), 4Q161 (Peshar Isaa). 204 Craig A. Evans analyzes that the scheme of the two messianic (kingly and priestly) figures evokes the two figures in Zech 4:14 (i.e., Zerubbabel who is related to the royal Davidic Messiah, and Joshua who is linked to the Great Priestly Messiah). See Evans, Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature, ed. Baker Academic Paperback (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011), 8, 455–56. 205 Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” 129–30. 206 Floyd V. Filson, The Gospel According to John (Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1963), 135.

192

Chapter 2

is, nevertheless, a particular expectation of the Qumran sect for a messianic figure associated with its prophetic concept and images.207 Importantly, this messianic figure also appears similar to the image of “the Teacher of Righteousness” as a heavenly or divine agent in A Commentary on Habakkuk, in 1QpHab 1:12–14, and 2:1–10, 9:9–10, and “the Instructor” of Torah in the Character for Israel in the Last Days in 1Q28a.208 These messianic features of prophetic and priestly figures appear to be profoundly related to the teachings and interpretations of Torah.209 In this vein, we can infer that the ‘priest’ and ‘prophet’ images of the messianic figures in the Qumran texts, such as the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel (e.g., 1QS9:11) and the Teacher of Righteousness (e.g., Geniza B 20) not only reflect the apocalyptic and eschatological messages of Torah but are also related to a salvific and divine-like image of Torah. Specifically, as Hilka Alouf-Aboody notes, the figure of Elijah in Qumran texts (e.g., in 4QInstruction), and Second Temple and rabbinic literature, mainly appears both as a teacher of Torah (Law) and precursor of the Messiah, as well as a mediator of prophecy and divine secrets (i.e., the resurrection of the dead).210 The roles of Elijah the prophet are intertwined with a messianic (i.e., apocalyptic, prophetic, and pietistic) teacher in the messianic era and the image of Wisdom associated with the concept of Torah.211 The images of Elijah appear as a result of various evolutions associations between wisdom and messianic (apocalyptic and eschatological) thought in rabbinic and Wisdom literature during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. It is critical to 207 Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” 117–19. Geniza B 20 says that the beloved Teacher dies before the appearance of the Messiah from Aaron and Israel. The Teacher of Righteousness seemingly does not appear as a Messiah unlike the two Messiahs of Aaron and Israel. 208 Ibid. In the Geniza B 19, B 20 in the Zadokite fragments (Damascus Document), the image of the “Messiah of Aaron” similarly appears as a final Teacher of Righteousness at the end of days. See also 1QpHab 7:4–5. In addition, the prophetic and messianic figures, which we can see in the Hebrew Bible (e.g., Dt 18:15–18; 33:8–11), also appears to be specifically interpreted in 1QS9, 11 and in 4Q175 (= Testimonia). Schiffman, “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls,” 116–29. 209 The profound association between the messianic figures and the teachings and fulfilment of the Torah reflect the function and mission of messianic figures, related to the fulfilment of the teachings of the Torah, and thereby generates implicitly a messianic image of Torah. 210 Hilla Alouf-Aboody, Through the Prism of Wisdom: Elijah the Prophet as a Bearer of Wisdom in Rabbinic Literature (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2020), 87–137, 179–227, 345–406. 211 Cornelis Bennema classifies three main strands of wisdom traditions: Torah-centered, Spirit-centered, and Apocalyptic-centered, as a result of complex combinations and developments of Torah, Wisdom, and messianic ideas during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. Bennema, “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition in Intertestamental Judaism: Origins, Developments, and Characteristics,” TB 52.1 (2001): 61–82.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

193

note that the association between Torah and Wisdom, which clearly appears in Wisdom literature, such as Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon, also appears to be developed through a rabbinic appropriation in the angelic and divine-like images of Elijah who bears divine wisdom and esoteric knowledge of Torah in the talmudic, midrashic, and late antique Jewish mystical literature. In all, the images of the messianic (divine-like or eschatological) figures can be classified as two models: a priestly figure connected to the Messiah of Aaron, and a prophetic figure related to Moses, Elijah, or the Teacher of Righteousness in the Qumran community. More importantly, the prophetic and divine-like images of these messianic figures in the Qumran texts, Wisdom literature, and Second Temple and rabbinic literature, appear to be closely related to the “sage” and “savior” images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah (e.g., personified Wisdom figures in Wisdom literature, Philo’s Logos, Jesus in the Gospels, and shekhinah) in the previously examined texts from early Jewish and Christian sources.212 It is also notable that John A. T. Robinson explains that the three (kingly, priestly, and prophetic) types of messianic images in the Qumran material and rabbinic literature have a profound nexus with the images of Jesus in the Gospels.213 As Charlesworth also point outs, the messianic and eschatological manner in which the early first-century Judean Jews behind the Qumran texts spoke and thought is incontrovertibly similar to that of the early Christian community, and especially to the way Jesus speaks in the Gospels.214 Indeed, the priestly and prophetic images of messianic figures in the Qumran texts, as noted earlier, involve not only the images and activities of personified Wisdom as a sage and master (in Prov 8 and 9) but also are similar to the image of shekhinah in the Johannine Logos as described in Jn 1:14, which implicitly reflects a salvific and divine-like image of the divine presence and glory of God’s “indwelling” within Israel (cf. Ex 40:34; Tg. Onq to Ex 25:8).215 In particular, the images of the messianic figures in the Qumran texts are reminiscent of the images and activities of Jesus in the Synoptics, which convey a divine-like, prophetic, and salvific image, as examined earlier, in which Jesus

212 The Wisdom figures mainly appear as a sage (teacher)-like and kingly image in Wisdom literature (e.g., Wis 1:1, 3:8, 4:16, 5:1–2, 6:10). See Sinnot, 161–62. 213 John A. T. Robinson, The Priority of John, ed. Jennifer F. Coakley (London: SCM Press, 1985), 23–28. Robinson also notes that the Gospel of John contains a multi-faceted messianic image, which reflects Jesus’ view of eschatology in the Synoptics (See ibid., 339–41). 214 Charlesworth, “The Concept of the Messiah,” 163–64. 215 Mack, The Christ and Jewish Wisdom, 209. The similarities between narrative meshalim of personified Wisdom and the parables and aphorisms in the Jesus tradition are also manifest in the Jewish wisdom literature, as well as ancient Near Eastern narratives.

194

Chapter 2

symbolizes himself (i.e., “flesh and blood”) as “bread” (e.g., Jn 6:35) and “water” (e.g., Jn 4:13–14), and eventually prophesizes an eschatological salvation. In all, this examination shows that the images of messianic figures in the Qumran texts are interlocked with the sage-like, prophetic, and priestly images and activities of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Jesus, and shekhinah. This also implies that a messianic and divine-like image of Torah implicitly appears in the images and activities of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah manifest in the messianic figures, which are alluded to in their priestly, prophetic, and salvific roles. Furthermore, the messianic of the hypostatic notions of Torah, which combine the priestly, prophetic, and salvific images, also appear to be related to the prophetic and salvific images of Philo’s Logos, which implicitly combines the Greek Logos and Jewish Wisdom. Philo, in Leg. II. xxi, xxii, conceives the status and identity of personified Wisdom as a created or angelic being in accordance with the scriptural verses, as rendered in the Septuagint, “The Lord created me the beginning of His ways for His works (Prov 8:22).”216 In addition to the sense of “creation,” in Ebr. viii, 31, personified Wisdom also is implicitly described as a God-like being, which was not created by God, but only “obtained” (‫ ) ָקנָ נִ י‬by Him.217 As Wolfson shows, the dualistic conception of the angelic and God-like images of Wisdom is applied to a dualistic conception of the Logos and Torah. The God-like image, as it connects to messianic figures, such as “prophet” and “high priest,” in its relation to the Logos, seems very similar to the “sage” and God-like images of personified Wisdom.218 Philo eventually associates the God-like and messianic images of Wisdom and Logos with the pre-existent and divine images of the Laws of Moses, i.e., the Torah, which is the source of Wisdom and Logos, as Wolfson noted.219 Moreover, it is notable that Philo conceptualizes a messianic era, without using the term Messiah to refer to a messianic figure, as an era where, in the teachings of Torah, are fully accomplished in accord with the Jewish traditional interpretations.220 Philo first describes the messianic era of the “ingathering of the exiles” in Praem. xxix, 165 as the 216 Philo, Leg. II. xxi, xxii; Wolfson, Philo, 1:256. 217 Philo, Ebr. viii, 31; cf. Virt. x, 62–65; Wolfson, Philo, 1:25. 218 Wolfson, Philo, 1:258–91; 327–28. 219 Ibid. Philo’s logic principally appears to prioritize the Laws of Moses, which are the source of Wisdom and provides its sources to the Logos. See Kinyan Torah (acquisition of Torah) in m. Pirkei ʾAvot 6:6. Again, I, however, do not claim the priority of the origin of Torah over Logos and Wisdom. However, this examination focuses on modeling the three images of various hypostatic notions associated with the concept of Torah, it is intended to analyze the outcomes form this phenomenological examination of the images of Torah by prioritizing the concept of Torah over various hypostatic notions. 220 Wolfson, Philo, 2:395–420.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

195

initial stages of the history of Jewish messianism from a political or national perspective.221 He does so while considering the historical contexts, such as the continuous existence of the empires of Alexander the Great and the Romans. Philo specifically tries to integrate a biblical (and apocalyptic) aspect with a mystical (and eschatological) aspect of messianism into the concepts and images of the Logos.222 Philo thereby appears to de-historize the messianic era as a historical progression based upon Stoic ideas in Praem. xiv–xxix, 79–172.223 Instead, Philo appears to describe an individual and spiritualized experience in relation to the Logos in the descriptions of the messianic era, which will be governed by the Laws of Moses as a divine Logos.224 Philo’s Logos thereby plays a critical role in neutralizing a political desire of acute (militant or apocalyptic) messianism, and in encouraging an inner (or spiritualized) experience of the human soul (or intellect) in the intelligible world.225 This demonstrates that Philo, through making an allegorical connection between a political and a spiritualized component in the messianic era, alleviates not only a tension between philosophy and politics, but also a conflict between the present condition and an eschatological ideal, insofar as, even in the present historical circumstances, the individual can still achieve a eschatological state. On the basis of this theory, we can see that Philo’s Logos explicitly shows a dual conception of the messianic image of Torah: Messiah as a historical and philosophical concept, and a messianic and eschatological era as an abstract and mystical concept. The dualistic conception of Philo’s Logos produces not only the “son” and “king” images of a messianic figure allegorized as an angelic image of the Logos but also the “sage” and “prophet” images of a messianic figure symbolized as a God-like image of the Logos. As I will argue, the “son” and “king” images are in keeping with the historical messianic concept while

221 Cf. Dt 30:3–5. 222 Wolfson, Philo, 2:395, 415, 420, 425–26. 223 Wolfson, Philo, 2:419; Mos. II. vii, 43–44; Mos. II. li, 288; Philo, in Praem. xiv–xxix, 79–172, de-historicizes the messianic era while he particularizes a vision of a Golden Age in Praem. xvi. 95–97, and xxix. 168–70. Philo actually neither follows nor opposes the Stoic messianic ideal, even though he utilized Stoic ideas in order to create the Jewish ideal of a messianic era, which would be governed by the Laws of Moses, as a divine Logos, in a kind of reinterpretation of the Stoic ideals governed by universal laws of reason and nature. 224 Wolfson, Philo, 2:417–19; Mos. II. iii, 14; Yehoshua Amir, “The Messianic Idea in Hellenistic Judaism,” 58. 225 Philo, Somn. II. x, 71; v, 34. See also Richard D. Hecht, “Philo and Messiah,” in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era, ed. Ernest S. Frerichs, William S. Green, and Jacob Neusner (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 154–63. cf. Lev. Rab. ii, 2; ix, 7; xxvii, 12.

196

Chapter 2

the “sage” and “prophet” images are in keeping with the abstract and mystical messianic concept. On the one hand, we can infer that Philo projects a personal and historical messianic figure as an allegorical designator for the Logos. Philo thereby creates a messianic concept and image of the Logos in his hermeneutical system (i.e., allegorization), which is connected to a son-like and angelic image of Torah as explained earlier.226 Against the backdrop of this theory, Philo further conceptualizes a messianic era, which would be brought by the ideal messianic figure in accordance with the teachings of the Torah (the Laws of Moses).227 On the other, the God-like image of the “sage” and “prophet” is correlated with a spiritualized messianism. On this basis, as Scholem argued, Philo neutralizes the political messianic desires by transforming the messianic ideas into a de-historized, allegorized, and spiritualized messianism.228 As Richard D. Hecht also analyzes, Philo, while describing a specific historical or mythical figure as an allegorical designator for the Logos, radically transforms a messianic era, through the use of his exegetic and hermeneutic strategies, into a spiritualized and intellectualized experience through the Logos.229 Philo here utilizes an eschatological conception for formulating the symbolized and mythologized concepts of the Logos and a thoroughly spiritualized messianism, which is profoundly involved with an ahistorical context.230 Taken together, this substantiates that Philo, by this logic, creates not only a new Jewish messianic blueprint or drama through the combination of the Hellenistic intellectual and the Jewish wisdom traditions but also a messianic image of Torah which associates it with an angelic or God-like image of Torah.231 In all, Philo’s Logos, allegorized as a historical (i.e., apocalyptic) messianic figure, appears close to an angelic or visualized mediator, who accomplishes the teachings of the Laws of Moses, i.e., Torah, on the basis of the traditional Jewish messianism. At the same time, the dualistic conception of Philo’s 226 Julien de Savingnac, “Le Messianisme de Philon d’Alexandrie,” NT 4 (1959): 319–24; Philo, Praem. xxix, 172; Conf. xiv, 63; Mos. II. vii, 44; II. li, 288; Opif. xxvi, 79–81. 227 Wolfson, Philo, 2:423–31; Collins, Between Athens and Jerusalem (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000), 115–16. 228 Scholem, “The Neutralization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 201–2. Philo’s neutralization of messianism appears to be related to the political context of Alexandria around the second half of the first century CE. 229 Hecht, “Philo and Messiah,” 162–63. Hecht regards Philo’s messianic conception of the Logos as a “realized eschatology.” 230 Ibid., 154; Yohoshua Amir, “The Messianic Idea in Hellenistic Judaism,” Mahanayim 124 (1970): 54–67 (Hebrew). 231 Ibid., 158. Philo’s messianic expectation is primarily based on the normative importance of the Messiah in ancient Jewish texts and contexts.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

197

messianism, in relation to the Logos, embraces not only an apocalyptic aspect of messianism, which conservatively neutralizes its historical and political aspects but also an eschatological (abstract) aspect of messianism which radically symbolizes and spiritualizes the particularistic concepts of messianism. Consequently, Philo’s Logos creates a messianic image of Torah, which appears close to both an angelic and a God-like image, and which variously combines multi-faceted aspects of messianism. This shows that the critical features of the images of the messianic figures in the early Jewish and Christian sources are profoundly connected to the teachings of the Torah and relate to the judgment and ultimate salvation of God, and thereby create a messianic image, which appears close to the angelic and God-like images of Torah. Furthermore, Philo’s dualistic conception of messianism, in relation to the Logos, gives a critical insight into the messianic implications of the images of messianic figures who are conjoined in various hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Incarnate Jesus as well as personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature and the Qumran texts. As also noted earlier, Philo’s dualistic conception reappears in the apocalyptic and mythologized images of Jesus in the Gospels in relation to a messianic image of Torah. As Mark notes, the messianic implications of the images of Jesus can be divided into an apocalyptic and historical figure (“realized or now”) and an eschatological concept (“futuristic or then.”)232 Anthony A. Hoekema calls it “inaugurated” eschatology – that is an eschatological age which not only “has indeed begun,” but also which is “by no means finished.”233 Clear evidence of a two-dimensional messianic conception of the Johannine eschatology can be found in Jn 5:24–29: “already,” that is, realized, and “not yet,” that is, futuristic as reflected in the notions of the “world to come” or “the Kingdom of God.”234 Some NT scholars, such as Robinson, Bultmann, and John J. Collins, discuss the relationship between the Gospels and the eschatology of the Qumran texts, which also combine present and futuristic characteristics.235 As Collins explains, the Qumran texts appear to represent a more “realized eschatology” which focuses on ritual 232 Mack, The Christ and Jewish Wisdom, 192–207. 233 Anthony A. Hoekema, The Bible and the Future (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979), 17–18. The “inaugurated” eschatology not only encircles the start and finish of the eschatology but also guarantees an eschatological accomplishment in the future. 234 George E. Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974), 306; Cook W. Robert, “Eschatology in John’s Gospel,” Criswell Theological Review 3 (1988): 99. The structure of the eschatological dualism of Johannine thought is characterized as an interpenetrating dual division, which consists of an apocalyptic present and eschatological future. See also Ladd, A Theology of the New Testament, 338–39. 235 The cosmological dualism of Gnosticism had a critical impact on its dualistic and eschatological motifs. This also shows the Hellenistic and Gnostic influences on the formative process of a realized eschatology. See Robert, “Eschatology in John’s Gospel,” 82.

198

Chapter 2

purity and Temple piety, whereas the Gospel of John shows a more futuristic conceptualization (e.g., Jn 14:2–3), which is related to the Second Coming of Jesus.236 However, in contrast to the Synoptics, the Gospel of John also puts a greater emphasis on a present aspect in which an eschatological understanding of truth is ultimately directed to a practical realm, which has bearing on everyday life.237 It, thus, becomes evident that an apocalyptic emphasis on the Kingdom of God in the Synoptics appears different from a present or spiritualized emphasis upon expected eternal life and its eschatological implications in the Gospel of John. Despite the degree of the difference in emphasis, both the Synoptics and the Gospel of John have a dualistic messianism: an apocalyptic feature and a “realized” eschatological feature, which emphasizes the ultimate existential position of the individual.238 The different characteristics of the eschatological messianism in the Synoptics and the Gospel of John reveal a more complex system, which profoundly combines the historical and apocalyptic features, as well as symbolized and spiritualized features. This corroborates the dualistic conception of the images of Jesus in the Synoptics and the Gospel of John and the relationship with the dualistic conception of the images of Philo’s Logos in relation to a messianic image of Torah. In summary, this examination shows a shared religious and exegetical phenomenon of fashioning a messianic figure and imagining a messianic (apocalyptic or eschatological) image of Torah, which is associated with the angelic or God-like image of Torah. This analysis demonstrates that there was a profound (theological and hermeneutical) interaction between messianic (apocalyptic and eschatological) figures, such as Philo’s Logos and Jesus, as well as various messianic figures described in early Jewish and Christian sources including the Qumran texts and Wisdom literature. This further substantiates that a messianic image of the hypostatic notions of Torah emerges from the dynamic interactions between the angelic and God-like images of Torah within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions. 4

Critical Findings and Implications: Exegetical and Phenomenological

4.1 Supposed Primitive Forms of the Images of Torah as a Mediator The preceding examinations regarding the intertextual and theological nexuses between the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah demonstrate 236 Collins, Qumran, Apocalypticism, and the New Testament, 137–38. 237 Robert, “Eschatology in John’s Gospel,” 99. 238 Robinson, The Priority of John, 339–41.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

199

that three images of Torah are manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. While many scholars have claimed that there are limited linguistic and grammatical relationships and theological discontinuities between the various hypostases, I have presented sufficient evidence of the intertextual and theological relationships of the hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah, and of the existence and development of the three images of Torah within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. As emphasized above, the three images of Torah are dynamically formulated by literary and exegetical strategies, which utilize the hypostatic notions, which lead to the biblical, philosophical, rabbinic, and mystical concepts of Torah. The more we examine personified Wisdom in the Jewish wisdom materials, the more the nexus between personified Wisdom and Torah becomes evident. On the basis of this profound nexus, I delved into the intertextual, semantic, and theological relationships between a son-like image of personified Wisdom (‫) ָאמֹון‬, in Prov 8:22–31, and the images of the Johannine Logos (Jn 1:1–18). Specifically, I examined the theological and philosophical debates and the phenomenological features that were part of the shifting process from personified Wisdom to Incarnate Logos – that is Jesus – in the Gospels from two perspectives: 1) the move from personified Wisdom to the Johannine Logos; 2) the move from personified Wisdom to Jesus in the Synoptics. This examination shows the phenomenological associations and interactions between the concepts and images of various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah between the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions throughout the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. Specifically, it substantiates the three significant images: an angelic image related to the image of a son begotten as the firstborn being in creation, a God-like image related to the image of a sage or teacher with great and profound wisdom, and a messianic image related to the image of a prophet or priest for salvation. First, the son-like image of Incarnate Logos begotten from God, who was growing up in the bosom of God the Father, is related to the “son” images of personified Wisdom in Wisdom literature. It is also notable that the son-like images of personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos profoundly interact with Philo’s Logos and memra from the perspective of Jewish Logos theology. The son-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah are deeply related to the angelic image of a heavenly agent created in the creation context. These facts provide critical insight not only into the process by which the angelic images of the hypostatic notions of Torah are formulated but also into the formation and functions of the angelic image of Torah as a mediator connecting human beings and God. Second, the God-like image of Torah can be explicitly found in the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified

200

Chapter 2

Wisdom, Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, Philo’s Logos, and shekhinah in rabbinic tradition, as examined earlier. It is notable that in addition to the son-like image of personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8, we have also seen its God-like image as a “sage or teacher” in the creation context. The God-like image of personified Wisdom explicitly appears in the God-like image of Incarnate Logos (i.e., Jesus), which reflects an equal position with God. We have also seen that the speech styles and God-like image of personified Wisdom as a master in a banquet in Prov 9 are parallel to the images of Jesus in the Gospels. Both images are related to the God-like image of Torah. As seen earlier, Jesus’ speeches, discourses, and attitudes to the audiences reflect an intimate father-children relationship, which explicitly appears in the activities and images of personified Wisdom.239 Specifically, the image of Jesus in the Synoptics (Mt 11:16–20, 25–30; Lk 7:31–35, etc.) as a sage or teacher is exclusively associated with the God-like image of personified Wisdom as “a sage with wisdom and authority who grew up with God,” i.e., a symbolic divine being, pre-existing and working with God in creation.240 This association helps us understand the nexus of Torah and personified Wisdom in the Wisdom literature, in which the image of a sage conveys a matured heavenly figure with profound wisdom and authority in regard to the Torah. It is crucial to note that Torah not only signifies God’s teachings of the Law (νόμος) but also parallels to Incarnate Jesus, as a sage with great wisdom and knowledge of Torah. This examination thereby corroborates that the God-like image of Torah, as a hidden mediator, appears in the images (e.g., a creator, sage, or teacher with wisdom) and activities of personified Wisdom as well as of Jesus as Incarnate Logos. In all, out of these images emerge a God-like or heavenly figure, a divine agent or a semi-creator who accompanies and works with God. This shows that the symbolized images as a sage or master appears in proximity to God, and thereby create the God-like image of Torah. This implies that the advanced linguistic and hermeneutic strategies utilizing the symbolic terms and concepts have a critical impact on the process of formulating the God-like image of Torah, which as we will see is particularly manifest in the later Jewish mystical tradition. Above all, this substantiates that the implicit identification between God and the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah creates a God-like image of Torah as a hidden mediator who symbolizes a divine

239 Jesus’ speeches asking for repentance in Mt 3:2; Mk 6:12; Lk 5:32; 15:7; Jn 15:4–10 is a reverberation of Wisdom’s speeches in Prov 1:15–19; 8:36; 9:12, 18. 240 The examination of the angelic and God-like images of Jesus related to the images of personified Wisdom implicitly allow us to understand his personality and divinity.

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

201

entity, which is identical to God and does not function as a mediator between God and human beings. In summary, the angelic and God-like images of Torah are dynamically formulated, in accordance with the degree of emphasis and weight placed on one side or another of the dualistic conceptions, by a literary and exegetical strategy which expresses the religious experiences of the divine realms on the basis of the theological and philosophical tendencies of the authors. As noted, the Logos-centered tradition is behind the angelic image insofar as the Logos serves as a mediator between God and humans, while the Wisdom-centered tradition is behind the God-like image insofar as Wisdom is together with and not fully separable from God. Furthermore, the messianic image of Torah appears in a hybrid form, which employs either an angelic image or a God-like image of Torah. As examined earlier, Philo’s dual conception of the Logos shows a particular hermeneutic strategy for formulating the messianic images of Torah, which are deeply connected to both the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions. The messianic images of Torah intertwined with the angelic and God-like images explicitly reappear in the descriptions of a historical messianic figure, Jesus, who synthesizes the rabbinic, philosophical, and mystical features. The complexities of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah notwithstanding, in broad terms, their messianic images ultimately appear to be dynamically developed through the profound interactions between the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. The messianic figures and concepts are intertwined with theological and hermeneutical strategies which formulate the messianic images of Torah by combining with the images of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions manifest during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Although this examination shows, to some extent, a philosophical-intertextual relationship and phenomenological association between various hypostatic notions connected to the concept of Torah, it does not, to reiterate, entirely provide a historical reconstruction of their origins and of ideological and theological influences and interactions, which appear throughout the history of ancient Jewish and Christian thought. Nevertheless, its results strongly support the emerging possibility of historical connections between ancient Jewish and Christian sources and thought by showing substantial evidence of the dynamic development and phenomenological associations between various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah. In this regard, thorough three-dimensional (philological-historical, theological, and phenomenological) research will further contribute to elucidating and substantiating the continuity of the images of Torah as a vital model, representing the

202

Chapter 2

history of ideas from ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions to the kabbalistic tradition. Two Supposed Primitive Traditions: Logos-Centered and Wisdom-Centered The above observations and examinations of the three images of Torah demonstrate the existence and development of the two supposed primitive traditions: Greek Logos-centered and Jewish Wisdom-centered which dynamically developed the three images of Torah during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. These examinations illuminate not only how early Christian traditions appropriated the concepts and images of Torah for their own systems and theologies but also how they idiosyncratically applied the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah in formulating the activities and images of the Johannine Logos and Jesus in their theological and philosophical contexts. It is notable that the results of this examination show the pre-existence and emergence of two distinctive conceptual and ideological frameworks composed of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions which, as I will show, continued to creatively formulate three images of Torah – angelic, messianic, and God-like – throughout the history of religious and Jewish thought into the Middle Ages. On the one hand, through the intertextual and theological relationships between personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos, we have seen the existence of a Logos-centered tradition focused on the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as in personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, memra, and the Johannine Logos. We have also studied its development and critical features as they are manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources. Their exegetical relationships can be seen in their terminological and phraseological dimensions – that is, in the keywords that convey a literary interplay and reflect the theological and philosophical ideas regarding the hypostatic notions of Torah. These intertextual, exegetical, and theological features demonstrate the Logos-centered concepts of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the son-like images of personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, memra, and Incarnate Logos (i.e., Jesus) as the “begotten” Son of God. Philo’s Logos plays a critical role in allowing us to identify the exegetic and theological association between personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos in relation to the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. The influences of Greek and Hellenistic philosophies are important in analyzing the hypostatization and personification of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in reference to the exegetical practices and theological beliefs of multifaceted Judaism and early Christianity. As examined earlier, the personification and hypostatization of wisdom in Prov 8:22–31

4.2

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

203

reverberate in Philo’s Logos, memra, and the Johannine Logos (Incarnate Jesus). This demonstrates the existence of a Greek-Logos-centered tradition, which reflects the conceptual changes of Torah along with Hellenistic (philosophical and mythological) influences. Above all, the images and activities of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah appear to function as an angelic mediator, connecting God and human beings. The Johannine Logos corroborates not only a synthesis between the Logos-centered hypostatic notions (Philo’s Logos and memra) and the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions (personified Wisdom and shekhinah) but also concretizes a Logos-Wisdom theology, which interacted and developed within multi-faceted Judaism and early Christianity. This corroborates the presence of a hermeneutic strategy (i.e., allegory) and theological intention, one which utilizes the hypostatic notions of Torah as a mediator, and thereby creates an intimate relationship between God and human beings. On the other hand, we have found the existence of a Jewish Wisdom-centered tradition based on the images and activities of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah (such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and shekhinah). We have also examined the development and critical features of these hypostatic notions. As also noted earlier, the personification and hypostatization of Torah appears as one of the dominant compositional and hermeneutical strategies, formed through theological and philosophical interactions between the Jewish wisdom traditions and Hellenistic influences. The features of the Jewish Wisdom-centered tradition are also found in the early Christian sources, which were significantly influenced by and interacted with the Jewish wisdom and rabbinic materials. Against this backdrop, I provided clear evidence of the intertextual and theological relationships between personified Wisdom and Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, and we have seen the shared exegetical and hermeneutical features (a poetic and symbolic approach) manifest in their “sage” or “master” images in relation to other Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. The God-like images of personified Wisdom as a mature sage who is working together with God in creation in Prov 8, are directly analogous to the God-like images and activities of Jesus as a sage (prophet or teacher) with profound wisdom in the Synoptics. Indeed, the narrative meshalim of personified Wisdom, as a sage who utters prophetic sayings in Proverbs, are semantically and theologically related to the sayings and images of Jesus according to which Jesus presented himself as a Jewish prophetic sage in a sapiential form (e.g., aphorism, parable) in the Jesus tradition. The literary and exegetical practices, which are manifest in the images and activities of Jesus’ parables in the Synoptics, also appear to

204

Chapter 2

be profoundly related to those of personified Wisdom. For instance, some passages of the Synoptic Gospels explicitly offer obvious evidence of the direct nexuses connecting Jesus with personified Wisdom as an ontological wisdom (e.g., Mt 11:19). As examined earlier, the God-like images and activities of personified Wisdom, as a master in a banquet, corroborate a close nexus with those of Jesus, as a Lord in the Last Supper, in the Gospels. Thus, my analysis substantiates not only the deep relationships among personified Wisdom, Jesus, and other Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, but also the literary and exegetical strategies that allow for the formulation of the God-like image of Torah. These specific exegetic strategies are reflected in the images, activities, and sayings (i.e., narrative meshalim as a popular form of aphorisms and parables) of personified Wisdom and of Jesus in the Synoptics. Both are personified and hypostatized by a poetic, mythic, and symbolic approach. Based on these strategies, the Wisdom-centered tradition appears to have been developed through the reinterpretation, combination, and integration of the early Jewish traditions and the Hellenistic contexts. The images of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah as a non-visual or symbolized mediator, without a physical and philosophical mediator, ultimately appears to generate the God-like image of Torah. The hermeneutic strategies thereby demonstrate a possibility of revealing the divine realm and creating a symbolic and metaphoric connection between the infinite divine and the finite human realm through a linguistic symbolism. These strategies ultimately allow for a possibility of experiencing God through the God-like image of Torah as a mediator personified and hypostatized through the linguistic symbolism, as I will further discuss in this study. In summary, this examination reveals that there are multi-faceted conceptions and images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah as angelic, God-like, or messianic, in accordance with the degree of emphases placed on the two traditions: Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered. It also demonstrates that the three images of the hypostatic notions of Torah appear through these complicated intersections between the two traditions under the interactive influences of Wisdom-Logos theology. It is crucial to note that I do not intend to present a clear-cult and neat categorization of the two traditions in this study. As shown earlier, for instance, the traits of personified Wisdom generally characteristic of the Wisdom-centered tradition are closer to the portrayal of the images and activities of the Johannine Logos of the Fourth Gospel  – a text that is part of in the Logos-centered tradition  – than those of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, which can be mainly categorized as part of the Wisdom-centered tradition. The Johannine Logos demonstrates not only a synthesis between the Logos-centered hypostatic notions (Philo’s Logos and

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

205

memra) and the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions (personified Wisdom and shekhinah), but also concretizes a Logos-Wisdom theology, which interacted and developed within multi-faceted Judaism and early Christianity. In this sense, my examination also substantiates not only the profound interaction between the two traditions in both the Fourth Gospel and the Synoptic Gospels but also the peculiarity of each tradition without implying that the two traditions are mutually exclusive. The complex state of affairs shows the profound interactions between the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, which are formulated by utilizing the philosophical and mystical concepts of Torah. Moreover, as I will argue, the existence of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions has critical implications for the history of Jewish mystical thought regarding the images of Torah. 4.3 Theological and Phenomenological Implications This examination shows the possibility of the religious and theological correlations between multifaceted (Palestinian, Hellenistic, rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity, but also the correlations between the images of various hypostatic notions, which were formulated by theological and hermeneutic strategies (i.e., allegory and symbolism). Specifically, as examined earlier, the theological interactions between various hypostatic notions, such as the Memra-Logos theology, importantly influenced the theological formations of multifaceted Judaism and early Christian Logos theology and thereby the formation and interaction of the images of various hypostatic notions around the first and second centuries CE. This examination shows the necessity of a thorough investigation, from a phenomenological point of view, of the intertextual, literary, and theological implications and interrelationships between various hypostatic notions manifest in the thought of the Rabbis and early Christian fathers. It also underscores the importance of examining the angelomorphization, personification, and personalization of various hypostatic notions extensively developed in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions, and especially later in late ancient Jewish mystical as well as medieval kabbalistic literature. Based on this examination, it will be meaningful to further trace the history of the religious and theological debates surrounding the hypostatic notions, such as the Memra-Logos theology and the Trinitarian doctrine, by reconsidering the theological premises and subsequent literary and exegetical features, as well as the related history of deep interactions between Jewish and Christian thought in terms of the phenomenology of religion. So far, I traced through the intertextual and theological relationships between the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in order to further concretize the existence and features of the Logos-centered and

206

Chapter 2

Wisdom-centered traditions and show how their respective interactions generate the three images of Torah. My analysis proves that the images of Torah were dynamically formulated and developed by changes in the way in which Torah was conceptualized and by the emergence and interactions of various hypostatic notions of Torah within the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered traditions during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. Changes in the conception of Torah throughout the history of Jewish thought played a central role in the formulation of the hypostatic notions of Torah. Specifically, the prominent intertextual relationships between the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah substantiate the theological and philosophical nexuses between the two traditions, in addition to the centrality of Torah in their developmental processes, which are manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources. This also shows that the Logos-centered and the Wisdom-centered traditions were developed as the result of the dynamic interactions of the ideas of Logos and Wisdom with the hypostatic notions of Torah, along with the conceptual changes in the understanding of Torah that were the result of the centrality and uniqueness of Torah manifest during the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. Above all, although the concept of Torah does not appear directly to be hypostatized and personified in rabbinic literature, the conceptual centralization of Torah from other hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom and Logos appears in the rabbinic tradition, and thereby strong associations with other hypostatic notions such as Wisdom, Logos, memra, and shekhinah. The categorization of the two traditions also provides a critical apparatus for analyzing the formation of the images of Torah within various religious phenomena and traditions. It also demonstrates that despite the strong influences of Hellenistic and early Christian traditions, the centralization of Torah, discussed earlier, buttressed by the exegetic and hermeneutic strategies of the rabbinic and Jewish wisdom traditions, testifies to the uniqueness and significance of Torah. By this logic, the concept of Torah implicitly appears to convey the literary and hermeneutical features of personification and hypostatization in rabbinic literature, which shows a critical nexus between ancient and late antique Jewish mystical traditions and the kabbalistic tradition. In this context, the significance of Torah in various hypostatic notions is a critical religious phenomenon and a great catalyst for the conceptual interactions between Logos and Wisdom, as well as the dynamic formulation of the images of Torah within multi-faceted (Palestinian, Hellenized, and rabbinic) Judaism and early Christianity. Specifically, Torah’s significance also plays a critical role in conceptualizing and clarifying the formative processes and interactions of Wisdom-Logos theology in relation to the development of the hypostatic notions of Torah. It further allows for the discovery and identification of the

The Images of Torah in Early Christianity

207

developmental process and dynamic interactions between the two religions (multi-faceted Judaism and Christianity). This examination of the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, based on the centrality of Torah, demonstrates not only the further necessity for reexamining the interactions between the various (biblical, philosophical, rabbinic, and mystical) traditions but also the broader possibilities of the multifaceted features of the images of Torah. It also demonstrates the necessity of comprehensively and thoroughly reexamining various interpretative methodologies within early Jewish and Christian sources, without taking a one-sided (e.g., Christological) interpretation favoring one tradition or imposing a theological and philosophical presupposition, all in accordance with Idel’s panoramic approach and phenomenology of models. Such a reexamination would provide critical insight not only into the parting of ways of the two religions but also into an effective method of appreciating their convergent positions regarding the images of the hypostatic notions despite the conceptual changes and deviations in the understanding of Torah in each religion. Furthermore, this phenomenological observation shows the value of categorizing the three images of Torah as a comprehensive model in accordance with Idel’s methodology of models. It allows for a reappraisal of the developmental process of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah within the two (Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered) traditions during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. It also provides a means by which to examine their development into the full-fledged forms of the images of Torah within the full-fledged forms of two branches of the medieval Jewish thought  – philosophical and mystical. It thereby offers an efficient way of substantiating the continuity of the history of ideas regarding the hypostatic notions of Torah in the two Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions, which as I will argue, are continued in the Middle Ages by Jewish philosophy and kabbalah, respectively. My argument calls special attention to the further necessity of understanding and analyzing various theological, philosophical, and hermeneutical perspectives on a deeper and broader level in order to discover the continuity and development of the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah within the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered traditions throughout the history of Judeo-Christian thought. As implied earlier, the literary and hermeneutical strategies, combining a homiletic, midrashic, allegorical, and symbolical approach, which especially appear in the various texts (e.g., Prov 8:22–31, Jn 1:1–14, etc.), are intertwined with the authors’ theological tendencies, which are expressed in the way they formulate the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. The literary and hermeneutic strategies, which formulate the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, implicitly illuminate a religious experience,

208

Chapter 2

which occurs along with the concept of a (visible and invisible) mediator that creates an intimate relationship between God and human beings. In the next section of my study, I will engage in a detailed discussion of the existence and features of the essential ideas (i.e., the concept of a mediator, and the ideas of devekut and unio mystica), related to religious experiences of the authors and their theological intentions and literary and hermeneutic strategies, within their respective philosophical frameworks. In later chapters, we will turn to consider the “mature” medieval versions of the three images. I thereby will try to discover a missing link which can connect the primitive forms of the three images of Torah within the two traditions, which were dynamically developed during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, to their full-fledged forms in the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions through the Middle Ages. I will also elucidate the critical features of the religious phenomena of the three images of Torah as their primitive forms were significantly developed in ancient traditions and later concentrated in rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical traditions, and finally developed into their full-fledge forms, such as the Active Intellect (in the Jewish philosophical tradition) and sefirot (in the Jewish mystical tradition) in the Middle Ages. This examination will not only corroborate the continuity and development of the three images of Torah, which were dynamically formulated within the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions throughout the history of Jewish thought but also elucidate their phenomenological features in accordance with Idel’s panoramic approach based on the two senses of phenomenology of models described in the Introduction.

Part 2 Images of Torah from the Second Temple Period to the Middle Ages

∵

Introduction to Part 2 The previous examinations regarding the intertextual, philosophical, and theological relationships between the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah demonstrated the prominence of the images of Torah (angelic, God-like, and messianic), which existed within the two different traditions (Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered) throughout the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. The dynamic images of the hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom, Logos, memra, and shekhinah appear in the interactive syntheses in their Hebraic and mythical versions and their Hellenistic and philosophic versions. In this chapter, I will substantiate the continuity of the phenomena of the three images of Torah by showing in detail how the primitive forms of the three images of Torah in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods were developed into their full-fledged forms within the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. First, I will analyze the relationship of the Active Intellect to the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, while discovering an angelic image of the Active Intellect as it relates to the concepts and images of Torah. I will then delve into the idea of the Active Intellect, as a representative hypostatic notion of Torah, as it relates to the idea of devekut, and idea which prominently appeared in the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition. In so doing, I will analyze the ideas of devekut and noetic union (i.e., unio mystica) propounded by the medieval Jewish philosophers, such as Maimonides and Gersonides. In order to understand the developmental process of the concept of devekut, with respect to the notion of the Active Intellect, I will also investigate the relevant figures who were influenced by Maimonides and the Aristotelian philosophical tradition, such as Gersonides, and some Castilian kabbalists, who were influenced by the Maimonidean philosophy, such as Abraham Abulafia, R. Isaac of Acre, and R. Joseph Gikatilla. In addition, I will examine how the primitive forms, such as personified Wisdom and shekhinah in the Wisdom-centered tradition, were developed in the medieval kabbalistic tradition in the sefirotic system as an entire matrix of the hypostatic notions of Torah reflected in various sefirot, such as shekhinah, binah, and ḥokhmah. I will also analyze the meaning of the divine unity and divine essence in relation to the sefirotic system, while analyzing the ideas of devekut and unio mystica, as they dynamically formulate a God-like image of Torah according to the esoteric meanings of the medieval Jewish mystical tradition. I will further investigate the interpretative and hermeneutical approaches of Jewish mystics, especially the early-thirteenth century

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_005

212

Introduction to Part 2

kabbalists: Geronese kabbalists, such as R. Ezra of Gerona, Nahmanides, R. Azriel, and late-thirteenth century Castilian kabbalists, such as Abulafia, Moses de Leon, and Joseph Gikatilla. Through this examination, I will analyze how the angelic, God-like, and messianic images of Torah were dynamically formulated as part of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. I will also elucidate how the three (angelic, God-like, and messianic) images of Torah were dynamically formulated in the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, along with the ideas of devekut and unio mystica as they are manifest in both the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. I will further discuss the literary and hermeneutic strategies, which utilize the hypostatic notions of Torah as an allegorical and symbolic apparatus, and thereby formulate the three images of Torah in the operations of devekut and unio mystica. This study will eventually elucidate not only the continuity and implications of the three images of Torah, within a holistic picture of the religious phenomena throughout the history of Jewish thought, but also the continuous history of the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods though the Middle Ages.

Chapter 3

An Angelic Image of Torah in the Medieval Jewish Philosophical Tradition 1

The Continuity of Angelic Images of Torah: From the Logos to the Active Intellect

Through the examination of the Logos-centered tradition at the basis of the Second-Temple, and rabbinic-period hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, we can infer that there was a substantial preparatory period for formulating a central basis for the further development of the concepts of God and Torah. As emphasized earlier, the centrality of Torah in the intertextual and theological relationships between various hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah is evident not only in the nexus between Torah and personified Wisdom, created or begotten from God but also in the relationship between Torah and the Logos-centered hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. As examined earlier, the intertextual and theological relationships between the “son-like (or child-like)” image and activities of personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:30 and the Johannine Logos (i.e., Jesus in the Gospels) demonstrates that the angelic image of Torah is a visible mediator intervening between God and human beings. The angelic image of Torah is related not only to biblical concept of a son-like or angelic being but also to the philosophical concept of the Logos and the rabbinical concept of the memra. It should be recalled that Philo’s ultimate concern was to develop a way of protecting Jewish religiosity while harmonizing Hellenistic ideas with Jewish thought, and that Philo’s Logos thereby played a critical role in the formulation of the “son-like” and angelic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the Johannine Logos and memra. In this context, it is noteworthy that Gedaliahu Stroumsa analyzes the manner in which Philo’s notion of the Logos, as an anthropomorphic demiurge shifted into the notion of an angelic being in the ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions and into a mythological and mystical concept of the incarnational Logos in Greek and early Christian traditions.1 For instance, Justin Martyr, in a manner similar to Philo, identifies the Logos (in its Stoic concept) 1 Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God,” 277–81.

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_006

214

Chapter 3

with the Angel of the Lord, and with many other theophanies of the Hebrew Bible, and eventually with Jesus.2 This shows that an examination of Philo’s Logos clarifies the theological and philosophical influences on the development of the polymorphous features of the concept of Torah and God in rabbinic and early Jewish and Christian Gnostic sources, and later in the history of medieval Jewish philosophy and mysticism.3 This also corroborates that the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah manifest in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods have critical implications for the development of the angelic images of Torah in the Jewish philosophical tradition throughout Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages. As George H. Box and Daniel Boyarin have also discussed, the idea of the Logos as a physical and spiritual potential mediator is related to memra, which is a targumic representation of the word of God and later to the angelic being Metatron, who prominently appears in the later rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical literature (as well as in medieval Jewish mysticism).4 In addition, 2 Justin Martyr, Dialogue with Trypho, chs. 55–62 (pp. 82–96). 3 Marc Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-century Commentary on the Aggadah (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980), 219–20. Like the rabbinic refutations of the idea of two powers in heaven, which is profoundly related to Philo’s conception of Wisdom or Logos as an angelic or hypostatic mediator, Marqah also rejects the idea of God’s creation in cooperation with ‫שותף‬, an ‘associate’ such as the Angel of the Lord or Wisdom as a demiurgical or hypostatic mediator who possesses the Name of God, which existed already since around the second century BCE. See Memar Marqah II. 10, p. 46; Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 111–41. In addition, as noted earlier, I do not exclude a theological and ideological interaction between ancient Jewish mystical and early Gnostic traditions. In this sense, Philo’s conception of intermediators in relation to the Angel of the Lord and the Divine Name appears to have a transition to a Jewish mystical and Gnostic (Jewish and Christian) tradition, such as the system of Ophites in the work of Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 30.1–15. See the translation in Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon, St. Irenaeus of Lyons against the Heresies, ed. Dominic J. Unger and John J. Dillon (New York: Paulist Press, 1992), 95–102; Charles W. Hedrick, The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and Source Analysis (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980), V. 5 (pp. 19–23, 66) 19–23, 66; Origen, and Henry Chadwick, Origen: Contra Celsum (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980), VI. 24–30 (pp. 337–346). 4 George H. Box, “The Idea of Intermediation in Jewish Theology: A Note on Memra and Shekinah,” JQR 23.2 (1932): 106, 115–16. Interestingly, in the Gnostic and Samaritan texts, such as the Irenaeus’s Adversus Haereses and Memar Marqah around the second century BCE, we can also see that Hellenistic Jews and Christians and Samaritans, in a sense of pros and cons of the Gnostic and mythological elements, recognized the concept of hypostatic mediators, such as Logos, Wisdom, shekhinah, and Metatron, which are not only identified with the Angel of the Lord who is associated with the conception of an intermediator, but also with the idea of the Divine Name as a lesser deity or a demiurgical hypostatic entity. See Marqah, and John Macdonald, Memar Marqah (= The Teaching of Marqah), Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84 (Berlin: A. Töpelmann. 1963), IV. 2, pp. 86–87; IV. 7, pp. 96–98. Boyarin, “The Gospel of the Memra,” 243–84; idem, Border Lines, 89, 92. There was

An Angelic Image of Torah

215

Elliot Wolfson notes that the medieval Jewish philosophers (in a manner analogous to Philo’s conception of the Logos) conceived of the Active Intellect as “the image of God and in his likeness,” which is ontologically different from God, the supreme Intellect.5 Wolfson’s inference provides a critical insight into the relationship between the Active Intellect and the Logos in relation to the conceptions and images of Torah in the Jewish philosophical tradition in the Middle Ages. Alexander Altmann suggests that the medieval Jewish philosophers might have substituted the “materialized intellection,” i.e., Active Intellect, for Philo’s Logos, as a second hypostasis, a notion which had already appeared in the Logos-centered tradition during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods.6 In this context, Idel traces the intermediate potencies, such as Metatron and Incarnate Logos (i.e., Jesus) in the works of Abulafia, who conceptualized the Active Intellect as a mediator between God and human beings and identified it with Metatron.7 As Altmann notes, Metatron is considered a hypostatic notion based on a sophisticated hermeneutical combination of rabbinic, Jewish philosophical, and mystical traditions of talmudic and Enochic literature from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages.8 This shows that

5 6 7

8

an explicit difference between Christian Logos and Jewish Logos, which reflects a diversity of Logos theology in Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. Elliot R. Wolfson, Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination (New York: Fordham University Press, 2009), 342. Abulafia, in Ḥayyei ha-Nefesh, 7–8, 93, connects the two terms “image” and “likeness” with the “intellect” and “imagination,” respectively. Alexander Altmann, “‘Homo Imago Dei’ in Jewish and Christian Theology,” JR 48.3 (1968): 254. Idel, Messianic Mystics, 86–87. Peter Schäfer also analyzes the historical and theological interactions between Metatron in 3 Enoch and Jesus in the New Testament. See Schäfer, The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012), 141–49. Later in the study, I will discuss Abulafia’s system which encompasses the profound relationships between the Logos, Metatron, and shekhinah in the late rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical traditions, as well as the Active Intellect in the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition. Philip S. Alexander, “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch,” JJS 28 (1977): 159–60; idem, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” JSJ 18.1 (1987): 40–68; Steven R. Scott, “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes,” JSP 18/1 (2008): 55–78; Boyarin, in “Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism,” JSJ 41.3 (2010): 333, notes that “3 Enoch is a late Hebrew mystical apocalypse from the end of late antiquity in the Enoch tradition, roughly contemporaneous with the final production of the Babylonian Talmud itself.” Boyarin thereby argues for the notion of “polymorphous Judaism,” by showing the genealogy of rabbinic Judaism. Indeed, we can see that a profound nexus developed between the first-century Parables of Enoch, composed in the early Roman period, and the Books of 2 Enoch and 3 Enoch, composed in Late Antiquity (See ibid., 359–60). In b. Sanh. 38b, Rav Idi’s direct indication of Metatron in the exposition of the verse in Ex 23:21 shows the identity of Metatron as a semi-divine (i.e., angelic) figure. The relationship of Enoch in 1 Enoch, 2 Enoch

216

Chapter 3

Metatron functions as a critical link connecting the Logos-centered of Torah from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods to their full-fledged forms in the Middle Ages. In this context, I now discuss Metatron, in detail, a matter I did not discuss earlier when dealing with the hypostatic notions, linked to the concept of Torah in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Late on, I will also examine the relationship of Metatron, as a hypostasis, to Abulafia’s idea of the Active Intellect. Indeed, the figure of Metatron appears to not only have been influenced by the Logos-centered hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, but also to have interacted with the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom, and shekhinah as found in literature spanning Second Temple period through the Middle Ages.9 Interestingly, in a manner similar to the memra, Metatron appears in the talmudic, midrashic, and targumic literature, as well as Hekhalot literature.10 Metatron, whose story is based on the legend of the biblical Enoch’s transformation into an angel, is connected to the images of various angelic beings in the Enochic and talmudic literature.11 It is notable that Metatron, as an angel, is profoundly related to Enoch as Metatron in 3 Enoch (The Hebrew Book of Enoch), which links between the earlier Enoch legend and the later Metatron mysticism.12 We may infer that the image of Metatron, which is identified with the image of “one like unto a son of man” (‫ ) ְּכ ַבר ֱאנָ ׁש‬in Dan 7:13, is connected

and 3 Enoch with the “Son of Man” of Daniel 7 sheds light not only on the profound nexus between earlier Jewish texts and late-antique rabbinic literature but also on the early and late-antique Christian traditions that show the explicit identification between Jesus and the Son of Man (335). 9 Stroumsa, “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ,” 269–88. 10 Segal, Tow Powers in Heavens, ix, 62–67. The image of Metatron appears to be directly related to the image of two powers in heaven sitting on the throne. The Metatron mysticism mainly appears since the fourth century CE. 11 Andrei A. Orlov notes, “The origin of the Metatron tradition is shrouded in mystery. Some scholars trace it back to Enochic lore, noting that in rabbinic and Hekhalot materials many early roles and titles attributed to Enoch in apocalyptic writings have been transferred to Metatron. Metatron’s origins, however, cannot be explained solely with reference to Enoch, because Metatron also assumed many of the titles and functions assigned to Michael, Yahoʾel, Mechizedek, and other exalted angelic figures in early Jewish apocalyptic writings.” See Orlov, Metatron, in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism, 943; Scholem, Major Trends, 67–69. Only three references to Metatron appear in the Babylonian Talmud: b. Sanh. 38, b. Ḥag. 15a and b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b. The origin of the term Metatron is widely accepted as an abbreviated and transformed from Metathronios, i.e., “he who stands beside the God’s throne.” Cf. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, 125–42. However, its exact derivation is still a disputed issue. 12 Ibid.

An Angelic Image of Torah

217

to the son-like images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos as the “firstborn,” and the Johannine Logos, as a “son of God,” as well as to Jesus, as the “Son of Man” in the Gospels, as examined earlier.13 In 3 Enoch, Enoch becomes Metatron, an idea that is based on a creative reading of Gen 5:24, and is further connected to images of angelic beings, such as the princes of the seven heavens (e.g., 3 En. xvii).14 In Hekhalot literature (e.g., Synopse §§ 107–222), Metatron explicitly appears as the angel known as “the Prince of the Presence” (e.g., 3 En. xvii), who has access to the Divine Presence in relation to the merkavah imagery and who reveals the secrets of the merkavah to R. Ishmael and R. Akiva.15 In a manner similar to the image of Metatron, the figure of the “Prince of the Torah” (i.e., Sar Torah) appears to play a critical role in transmitting the wisdom and secrets of Torah, and in mediating between God and the travelers to the divine throne-room.16 In relation to merkavah mysticism, Metatron appears to be interchangeable with the “Prince of the Torah” and “Prince of Wisdom” in the Enochic, midrashic, and Hekhalot literature.17 Metatron is involved not only with the heretical idea of two powers in heaven (in relation to memra) debated by the Rabbis but also with the development of merkavah mysticism (especially in Hekhalot literature) from ancient Jewish mystical and later rabbinic traditions to medieval kabbalah.18 In Hekhalot literature, the anthropomorphic and mythologized descriptions of the Throne of Glory, which can be seen in merkavah visions, are explicitly represented as an

13 As Philip S. Alexander discussed, Justin Martyr’s conception of the Logos as a “second person” or “second God” appears to be related to Metatron as a second God or lesser YHWH noted in b. Sanh. 38b. See Alexander, “From Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch” in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible, ed. Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren (Harrisburg, Pa.: Trinity, 1998), 87–122; Gruenwald, “‘The Visions of Ezekiel’: Critical Edition and Commentary,” Termirin 1 (1972): 128–29 (Hebrew). The “Son of Man” in the Parables of Enoch (1 Enoch lxxi) appears to be related to the figure of the “Youth” (‫ )נער‬while it appears to be opposed to an elder or matured image of the “Ancient of Days” as God is called in Dan 7:13. 14 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, PART II, 76–89. 15 Schäfer, Synopse, §§ 206–213. 16 Swartz, “Ancient Jewish Mysticism,” 40–41. 17 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, iii–xvi, and xlviii; Num. Rab. xii, 15; Schäfer, Synopse, §§ 281–294. 18 The critical features in 3 Enoch, such as apocalypticism and Gnosticism elucidate the origins and development of the Enoch-Metatron traditions. See Segal, Tow Powers in Heavens, ix, 62–67; Alexander “Historical Setting,” 159–60. Andrei A. Orlov, in The Enoch-Metatron Tradition (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005, 86–303), examines the roles and titles of Enoch-Metatron in Sefer Hekhalot and in 2 Enoch, while comparing them with the features of Enoch-Metatron in various traditions (e.g., apocalyptic tradition).

218

Chapter 3

angelic image, and are identified with Metatron and shekhinah.19 Metatron as depicted in merkavah imagery in the talmudic passages, such as b. Sanh. 38b Ḥag. 15a and b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b, which reflect a somewhat later stage of development than that of 3 Enoch, also appears in the Hekhalot and Hasidei Ashkenazi literature and thirteenth century kabbalistic sources (e.g., Abulafian and Zoharic corpuses).20 As many scholars, such as Alon and Urbach, agree, the shekhinah in the talmudic, targumic, and Hasidei Ashkenazi literature appears as a mythic and mythological figure with an anthropomorphic form, although it does not clearly appear as a separate created or angelic being.21 In this regard, Michael Fishbane notes that the anthropomorphism of Metatron and shekhinah (i.e., the divine glory) can be understood as an implicit expression of the hypostatic entities in an esoteric tradition of the notion of middot, which means “measures” or “potencies” of God in early rabbinic midrashic texts.22 In all, the anthropomorphic descriptions of Metatron and shekhinah are ultimately related to not only the depiction of an angelic or Logos-like manifestation of the divine attributes in various forms but also to the personification and hypostatization of the divine presence.23 Furthermore, it is crucial to note that in a manner that recalls Philo’s Logos and Metatron, the Active Intellect became a critical subject of energetic discussion of medieval Jewish philosophers. Specifically, it is first necessary to explain the background of Maimonides’ conceptualization of the Active Intellect, and 19

Schäfer, Synopse, in Hekhalot Zutari, §§ 346–352 (The Journey to the Chariot and the Vision of God); §§ 368–375 (Throne Midrash); in Markavah Rabba, §§ 685–704 (Shiur Qomah). 20 In 3 Enoch, there are detailed descriptions of merkavah: the ascent and descent of the angels over a distance of “myriads of parasangs” (3 En. xxii, B and C); “the winds blowing under the wings of the kerubim” (3 En. xxiii); “the different chariots of the Holy One, blessed be He” (3 En. xxv and xxiv); ofannim (3 En. xxv). See Odeberg, PART II, 76–89. 21 Alon, 44; Urbach, The Sages, 63–67. Scholem is skeptical with the shekhinah as a hypostatic entity and a separate entity alongside the Deity in the talmudic literature and in even Hekhalot literature. For Scholem, the shekhinah describes the manifestation of God and is speculation as a created entity is a post-talmudic development. Scholem later recognizes, in Midrash Proverbs 22:29, an exception to this rule, as noted earlier, and sees in this text a new conceptual development of shekhinah according to which the shekhinah is separate from God. See Scholem, Zur Kabbala Und Ihrer Symbolik (Zürich: Rhein-Verlag, 1960), 48, 58–62, 68, 119. According to the literature of Hasidei Ashkenaz, we can explicitly see these features in the angelic images of a visible kavod (i.e., shekhinah) which, is created or emanated from an invisible kavod. See Dan, Torat ha-Sod shel Ḥasidut Ashkenaz (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968), 56–57; Schäfer, Synopse, §§ 222–228. 22 Michael Fishbane, “The Measures of God’s Glory in the Ancient Midrash,” in Messiah and Christos: Studies in Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser, ed. Ithamar Grunwald (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992), 53–74. 23 Urbach, The Sages, 40.

An Angelic Image of Torah

219

of how Maimonides views the biblical conception of “angel” as an allegorical designator for the Active Intellect. For many scholars, Maimonides’ concept of the Active Intellect, which is based on the combination and integration of the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic philosophies and scriptural approaches, was ambivalent and controversial. As Pessin notes, he is ambivalent about the concept of the Active Intellect, since he seems to combine it with the emanation theory of Neoplatonism and the eternity of the universe of Aristotelianism.24 In this context, it is first necessary to note that ancient and medieval philosophers discussed the theological and philosophical meanings of the Active Intellect and God, as well as biblical subjects, such as creation, divine unity, prophecy, and divine providence. In the Aristotelian system, God is the First Cause, i.e., a Being generating the intelligent spheres, and the Unmoved Mover who operates the circular movement of the spheres in the conceptual frame of the eternity of the universe, as well as the Pure Knower, who is identified with a perfected, fully actualized Intellect and as the repository of all knowledge.25 The Neoplatonic theory of emanation in Enneads by Plotinus, which is based upon a hierarchical system of beings, explains a shifting process from the One to many divine attributes.26 This scheme involves the emanation from God, who is the One, of the Intellect, and further emanations from the Intellect, which is the first emanation, of the soul and nature, and had a huge impact on the formation of Neoplatonized Aristotelianism that is found in some medieval sources.27 The Jewish Neoplatonic conception of the Active Intellect, which developed from the eclectic Kalamic approach, implicitly can be found in the Fons Vitae and the poem The Kingly Crown of Solomon Ibn Gabirol (c.1121–1170).28 For 24

Sarah Pessin, “Jewish Neoplatonism: Being Above Being and Divine Emanation in Solomon Ibn Gabirol and Isaac Israeli,” The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 136. See Stefan Alexandru, Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda: Annotated Critical Edition Based upon a Systematic Investigation of Greek, Latin, Arabic and Hebrew Sources (Leiden: Brill, 2014), (1072a) 24–25, 137–40. 25 Aristotle, Metaphysics, Vol. II, trans. Hugh Tredennick and George Cyril Armstrong, LCL 287 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), Metaphysics XII. vi, 1072a. 26 Sarah Pessin, “Jewish Neoplatonism,” 94–100. Plotinus’ Enneads had a huge impact on the formation of the Neoplatonized Aristotelian thought. Plotinus presents a unique emanatory scheme, which explains a shifting process from the One to divine attributes. 27 Ibid. 28 Ibn Gabirol, The Kingly Crown (= Keter Malkhut), translation, introduction, and notes by Bernard Lewis; additional introduction and commentary by Andrew L. Gluck (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2003), IX (p. 52). The Kingly Crown is the greatest Hebrew religious and liturgical poem with philosophic content based on the Neoplatonic doctrines that was dominated by the influences of Hellenistic thought in the Middle Ages.

220

Chapter 3

Gabirol, although the One is “Beyond Being,” and is transcendent, ineffable and indescribable, its can be described as the Form of all Forms.29 Gabirol interpolates the Will as a mediator to allow for creation from the Will of God in order to emanate universal form (‫ )סוד‬and universal matter (‫)יסוד‬.30 In this sense, as Sarah Pessin notes, the first emanation of a repository of the Forms can be identified with the concept of the Active Intellect, which reflects an ultimate character of the One, i.e., God in the Neoplatonized Aristotelian system.31 In Aristotle’s De Anima (= On the Soul), we can see the concept of a transcendent “active intellect (or power),” which is separable from a “passive intellect,” which plays a key role in the process of stimulating and bringing about human intellectual activities.32 In contrast to the Neoplatonic concept of the Active Intellect, Aristotle fail to sufficiently explain not only the relationship between the active and passive intellects (or powers) but also their relationships with God. In this context, Maimonides appears to combine the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic conceptions of the Active Intellect and God, while creating an idiosyncratic (Jewish philosophical) position compatible with both the values of the Torah, Aristotelian philosophy, and Neoplatonic ideas.33 Maimonides thereby develops his philosophical and epistemological positions, which are critical for establishing a Jewish theological and philosophical criterion for numerous philosophical and theological subjects, such as the incorporeality

These doctrines were current among Islamic and Jewish thinkers in the Middle Ages. Fons Vitae had an exceptional influence on Christian scholasticism and was the most famous philosophical work of a systematic metaphysics. 29 Ibn Gabirol, The Kingly Crown, I–IX (pp. 27–33); Gabirol’s concept of God is different from Maimonides’ negative theology. Oneness is not the numerical one. The term “Beyond Being” appears to be used by Islamic philosophers, such as Averroes. 30 Sarah Pessin, 97–99. This theory of emanation in relation to the Active Intellect is developed through a natural extension of monism, in a manner that resembles the kabbalistic notion atzilut (‫)אצילות‬. The early kabbalists understood Ein Sof, i.e., who emanates everything, as the Hidden Ancient One and the power behind all the sefirot. However, no human thought can grasp this aspect of the Deity. It also traces back to the divine unity from the plurality describing the divine attributes. 31 Ibid. 32 Aristotle, De Anima (= On the Soul), trans. Walter. S. Hett, LCL 288 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), De Anima III. v. 430a. This passive intellect is deeply related to the Neoplatonic sense of emanation. 33 Daniel Frank, “Maimonides and Medieval Jewish Aristotelianism,” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 142–54.

An Angelic Image of Torah

221

and immutability of God, prophecy, providence, and so forth.34 Maimonides, however, recognizes the limitation of language, philosophy, and epistemology to express the true reality of the divine realm and God. For this reason, Maimonides describes the Active Intellect by employing the allegorical hermeneutic, which associates biblical concepts with philosophical concepts.35 He emphasizes the significance of allegorical interpretation, which allows for intellectual apprehension of the equivocal biblical terms, such as those that seem to anthropomorphize God with a view to understanding their metaphysical meaning.36 The reconciliation allows for an intellectual apprehension of the Torah.37 He is aided in doing so by identifying the ancient biblical and rabbinic Jewish esoteric traditions of maʿaseh bereshit (the Account of the Beginning) and maʿaseh merkavah (the Account of the Chariot) with physics and metaphysics respectively.38 In a manner similar to Philo’s Logos, Maimonides also explicates the biblical verses: “in the image of God” and “in His likeness” (Gen 1:26–27), through figurative interpretations associating the biblical concepts with the philosophical ones (i.e., “overflow” of the Active Intellect as an angelic agent to the human intellect).39 For Maimonides, the term “angel” is, thus, associated with the roles and images of the Active Intellect, which conjoins with the human intellect, and conveys the apprehension of the Active Intellect.40 This shows that, in a manner similar to Philo’s Logos and Metatron, the Active Intellect takes on the image of an 34 35 36

37 38 39 40

Sarah Stroumsa, “Saadya and Jewish Kalam,” in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 75–76. Pines, Guide II. 6, pp. 264–65. See Pines, Introduction to Guide; Introduction to Guide III; Guide II. 12, pp. 268, 279; Guide I. 4, 23. For instance, “And God saw that it was good” (Gen 1:10), and ‘Micaiah’ vision, “I saw the Lord” (I Kgs 22:19), do not signify a corporeal or anthropomorphic form of God but denote an intellectual apprehension of God (Guide I. 4, pp. 27–28). Maimonides also explains the philosophical meaning of other similar instances, such as “And thou shalt see My back” (Ex 33:23) (Guide I. 21) and “to stand erect” (Guide I. 15). Maimonides establishes a lexicon of equivocal terms in the Bible while trying to discover their allegorical meanings. Maimonides denounces anthropomorphic and corporeal conceptions of God, which are for the masses only relying on the imagination, while explaining their true meanings, which are connected to philosophical contents and require intellectual apprehension. See also Sara K. Braslavy, “Bible Commentary,” in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, ed. Kenneth Seeskin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 253–54. Braslavy, “Bible Commentary,” 254–55. Ibid.; Pines, Guide I. Introduction, 6. Even though Maimonides regards the Bible as an authoritative book, he also regards it as a container of Aristotelian philosophy. Pines, Guide I. 1, p. 23; Guide II. 12, pp. 278–80. Pines, Guide I. 2, p. 24; Guide II. 6, pp. 261–62. Maimonides explains that Elohim means the deity of the angels, which are separate intellects.

222

Chapter 3

angelic mediator between God and the human beings, as a full-fledged form of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah as mediators in the Second Temple and later rabbinic periods. This substantiates that the angelic image of Torah was formulated not only through an exegetically sophisticated combination of the biblical and philosophical hypostatic notions but also through a hermeneutic strategy, which embodies and highlights the concept of a mediator which intervenes between God and human beings. 2

Angelic Images of Torah Related to the Idea of Devekut to the Logos and Active Intellect

On the basis of the previous examination, I will examine the interactive relationships and development of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah manifest from the Second Temple and classical rabbinic periods through Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages, while analyzing the religious ideas and experience of devekut, which dynamically formulated the images of Torah. It is crucial to note that, in this formulative process of the images of Torah, the idea of devekut appears not only to play the critical role of bridging the gap between a transcendent God and human beings but also elucidates the relationship between the hypostatic notions of Torah and God Himself. In this context, I will further delve into the idea of devekut to the Logos and Active Intellect and its features and roles in formulating the angelic images of Torah. 2.1 In Philonic Thought The idea of devekut first appears in the Torah, where it is referred to in Dt 4:4, ‫“( וְ ַא ֶּתם ַה ְּד ֵב ִקים ַּביהוָ ה‬you who did cleave unto the LORD your God”) and Dt 13:4, ‫“( ּובֹו ִת ְד ָּבקּון‬cleave unto Him”), among other places.41 It is crucial to note that, as Adam Afterman analyzes, Philo creates his own theory of the devekut of the Deuteronomic commandment by interpreting biblical usages of the root d-b-q (‫)דבק‬, which appear in Dt 4:4, Dt 11:22, and Dt 30:20.42 As Harry Wolfson explains, Philo develops a new method of scriptural interpretation – philosophical allegory – through a synthesis of Platonic and Jewish thought.43 As Peter Schäfer discussed, Philo’s conception of God is primarily based on the 41 Adler, Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, accessed Jan 10, 2020. 42 Adam Afterman, “From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union,” JR 93.2 (2013): 181. 43 Harry Wolfson, Philo, 1:57, 115–38. Wolfson notes that Philo’s exegetical comments reflect an eclectic mix of philosophical traditions with particular emphasis on Platonic and Stoic traditions.

An Angelic Image of Torah

223

divine transcendence, which implies the Uncreated and Unknowable One.44 Within this philosophical framework, Philo elaborates on the idea of devekut, which means a spiritual or mystical cleaving to transcendent God, while explaining the relationships between human beings and God.45 Specifically, as Schäfer expounds, Philo explains the idea of devekut through the relationships between the human mind (or soul) and the Logos (Leg. III. xxii, 72).46 For Philo, through the human mind, human beings can comprehend not only “the sense perceptible” world but also participate in “the intelligible world of ideas,” which is identified with the (divine) Logos. In order to explain the process of participating in the Logos, Philo conceptualizes the Image of God as an intelligible cosmos, and a copy of the Image of God as the sense-perceptible cosmos. Philo associates the Image of God with the Logos as a “model,” and “archetypal seal.”47 Philo thereby develops a thematic connection between the Logos (or Reason) as a model and the human mind (or soul or intellect), which is created in the image of Logos (or Reason), as explicated earlier. This implies that God made not only the Logos as an “instrument,” which God used for the creation of the sense-perceptible cosmos, but also used the Logos as a model for the human mind (or soul) or intellect (or rational thought).48 Philo thereby connects the human mind to a copy (or likeness) of the Image of God (i.e., the Logos of God), assuming that a human being is an image of the Image of God.49 Philo further explains the idea of devekut through the theory of the Logos, which is the Image of God and “archetype” for creations.50 Specifically, Philo creates a way of ultimately expressing God by describing a relation between God and the Logos. Expression about the Logos thereby becomes a type of expression about God despite the incomprehensibility and inexpressibility

44

Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck), 155–56. Cf. Philo, Leg. III. xxxiii, 100–103. 45 John M. Dillon, “The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources,” Center for Hermeneutical Studies 16 (1975): 1–8. 46 Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 161–62. Afterman, “From Philo to Plotinus,” 194. Philo’s distinction between body and soul is influenced by the Greek philosophy. For Philo, the human mind is almost synonymously used with the human soul as a more comprehensive term (e.g., Leg. III. xxii, 72). 47 Sterling, “Different Traditions or Emphases?” 44, 55. 48 Ibid. 49 Ibid., 44. 50 Wolfson, Philo, 1:238–39. Plato uses the term image only “with reference to things in the visible world,” while Philo describes the term “image,” which conveys “pattern” (παραδείγματα) and “archetype” (αρχέτυπος) for the “ideas” as well as the Logos.

224

Chapter 3

of divine essence.51 Thus the Logos can explain the divine actions and divine attributes. As Schäfer also notes, Philo conceptualizes the Logos as a reflection of the divine essence and transcendence.52 In the larger system of Philonic thought, the Logos plays a critical role as an angelic agent as the representative of God or a divine mediator connecting human beings and God. In this vein, we can infer that like Philo’s Logos, the hypostatic notions, such as the Johannine Logos and memra, appear as angelic images of Torah that allow for relationships with God. In addition, the image of Jesus in the Fourth Gospel appears as an angelic image of Torah by allegorically transforming the biblical concepts, such as “the Son of God” (e.g., Jn 11:27, 20:31), and “the Son of Man” (e.g., Jn 12:34) into the images of the Johannine Logos, which eventually conveys the images of God and Torah. This substantiates that the Logos plays a critical role as a mediator, which enables the imaginative faculties in the human mind (or soul or intellect) to connect the Image of God, and to experience God (i.e., devekut).53 Philo appears to describe his experience as the utmost state of the human mind (or soul), which becomes identified with the Logos or the intelligible world of ideas (i.e., Logos and Wisdom) (cf. Conf. xx, 95–97).54 In this context, the Logos appears as a mediator for the devekut, i.e., the returning of the human mind to its origin in the Image of God (or Logos). Above all, as examined earlier, the image of the Logos, which is associated with the son-like image of personified Wisdom in creation and pre-existent Torah (the Word of God), appears as an angelic or visualized mediator as a biblical concept which connects God and human beings in the context of devekut. This demonstrates that Philo elaborated the idea of the Logos as an apparatus for explaining the idea of devekut and expressing the essence of God, which is, otherwise, beyond human comprehension, while maintaining an apophatic approach to the 51 Wolfson, Philo, 1:87–163. Philonic allegory as an interpretive method intends to solve the potential conflict between a philosophical meaning and an inner-biblical meaning. As a reminder, the Logos is identified with the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom in Sir 24:23, Gen. Rab. i. 1, and Wis 9:1. 52 Schäfer, The Origns of Jewish Mysticism, 162–63. See Philo, Her. xlviii. 230–36. “The divine Word separated and apportioned all that is in nature. Our mind deals with all the things material and immaterial which the mental process brings within its grasp, divides them into an infinity of infinities and never ceases to cleave them (235). This is the result of its likeness to the Father and Maker of all. For the Godhead is without mixture or infusion or parts and yet has become to the whole world the cause of mixture, infusion, division, and multiplicity of parts.” (236). Cf. Opif. xxii, 68–69. 53 Ibid., 160–2. In order to explain the operative process of the imaginative faculties, Philo uses a rare term apaugasma, which means “effulgence” or “radiance” which mirrors the active power and image of God (e.g., Wis 7:26). 54 Ibid., 172–73.

An Angelic Image of Torah

225

divine essence. In this scheme, the anthropomorphic expressions in the scriptural texts (Conf. viii, 28) are allegorically assigned to the Logos.55 As Afterman notes, Philo’s idea of devekut, which was formulated by a synthesis of Platonic and Philonic thought, implicitly appears to have a great impact on rabbinic and late antique Jewish traditions, which were transformed into a broader religious tradition in medieval Jewish philosophy and kabbalah.56 This also substantiates that Philo’s works plays a critical role in discovering a missing link – that is, a unique Jewish exegetical practice related to the concepts of God and Torah – for the centralizing process of Torah from the Second Temple period and Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages. The Idea of Devekut to the Active Intellect in the Thought of Maimonides Modern Jewish scholars, such as Scholem, Elliot Wolfson, and Yehudah Liebes, suggest a possible nexus between Philo’s idea of devekut to the Logos and the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect in Jewish medieval philosophical and mystical traditions.57 In this regard, with Philo’s idea of devekut in mind, I will investigate the development of the biblical idea of devekut into the philosophical conception of devekut, i.e., the communion or union between the human intellect and the Active Intellect in philosophical discourse.58 Philo’s idea of devekut in relation to the Logos gives a critical insight into Maimonides’ idea 2.2

55

See Migr. xxiv, 132: “Using still loftier language to express the irrepressible craving for moral excellence, he calls on them to cleave to Him. His words are: ‘Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God, and Him shalt thou serve, and to Him shalt thou cleave’ (Dt 10:20).” Philo also implies that the manifestations of the Divine Logos (or Divine Thought) designate the angelic beings in the Scripture. See Wolfson, Philo, 1:238–39. It is well known that Philo’s biblical exegesis is based on the allegorical presupposition of a twofold meaning (i.e., literal and “underlying” or allegorical) of the scriptural texts. Cf. Fug. xxxii, 179; Plato, Republic, vol. 1, LCL 237, ed. and trans. Chris Emlyn-Jones and William Preddy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), Republic II. 378d. 56 Afterman, Devequt: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought (Hebrew; Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011), 13–37, 36–43, 273–85, 340–44. See also Steven Harvey, “Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy,” in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy, ed. Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 349–50. 57 See Scholem, Major Trends, 114–15; Elliot R. Wolfson, “Traces of Philonic Doctrine in Medieval Jewish Mysticism: A Preliminary Note,” Studia Philonica 8 (1996): 99–106; Yehudah Liebes, “The Work of the Chariot and the Work of Creation as Esoterical Teachings in Philo of Alexandria,” in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination; Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane, ed. Deborah A. Green and Laura S. Lieber (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009), 105–20. 58 See Isaiah Tishby and Yeruḥam F. Lachower, The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts, trans. David Goldstein (Oxford; New York: Published for the Littman Library by Oxford University Press, 1989), 3:997–8; 1:235–42.

226

Chapter 3

of devekut to the Active Intellect. In this context, I first examine Maimonides’ philosophical methodology and his idea of the Active Intellect. It is notable that Maimonides reconciles metaphysic knowledge and the secrets of the Torah by associating maʿaseh bereshit with Aristotle’s physics, and maʿaseh merkavah with Aristotle’s metaphysics.59 Maimonides explains that the inner meanings of the Torah allegorically reflect the scientific truths of Aristotelian philosophy.60 This shows that Maimonides justifies not only the necessity of Torah study but also the study of philosophy while trying to eliminate a contradiction between the religious truth of Torah and scientific truths. By reconciling philosophy and Torah, Maimonides mutually approaches each biblical subject through his dialogical and dialectical methodology, i.e., providing both demonstrable proofs and dialectical arguments.61 In this context, Maimonides appears to recognize the human epistemological limitation of grasping the true reality of the conception of God and the emanation of an overflow of the Active Intellect to the human soul.62 On the basis of his epistemology and philosophical methodology, Maimonides theorizes that God is always the Intellect in actu. In other words, His essence has absolutely with no potentiality, and He is simultaneously the intellectually cognizing subject, and the intellectually cognized object.63 In order to explain the Active Intellect as the overflow from God, Maimonides interestingly turn to the biblical verses: “in the image of God” and “in His likeness” (Gen 1:26–27), while explicating a divine link between God and man, which can be formed in the human intellect.64 This shows that apprehension of the human intellect can be likened unto the apprehension of God through the human intellect’s 59

Maimonides emphasizes the significance of intellectual apprehension in interpreting the metaphysical meaning of equivocal terms regarding God. See also Sara K. Braslavy, “Bible Commentary,” 253–54, 268. 60 Sara K. Braslavy, 254–55. In a manner similar to Philo’s allegorical approach, which was described earlier, Maimonides allegorizes certain biblical truths and supernatural phenomena into the scientific and universal truths and principles. 61 Pines, Guide I. 68; Guide II. 1–2. Both demonstrations and dialectical arguments are part of Maimonides’ logical method for the solution of physical and metaphysical problems. Maimonides regards most contents as demonstration, such as the existence of God, but not all due to the empirical limits of human knowledge. This ambiguous and inconsistent attitude reflects his attempt to synthesize and epitomize the demonstrative and dialectical arguments on this subject. 62 Joseph Stern, “Maimonides’ Epistemology,” in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides, ed. Kenneth Seeskin (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 115–19; Warren Z. Harvey, “Maimonides’ Critical Epistemology and ‘Guide’ 2:24,” Aleph 8 (2008): 213–35. 63 Ibid., Pines, Guide I. 68, p. 165. 64 Pines, Guide II. 12, p. 279.

An Angelic Image of Torah

227

conjunction with the Active Intellect.65 By this logic, Maimonides allegorically interprets the Active Intellect as an “angel,” a religious term for the divine messenger who conveys prophecy and divine knowledge to prophets.66 This implies that for Maimonides, the Active Intellect, which contains intelligibles, appears to play a critical role for a philosophical understanding and knowledge of the Torah, and thereby appears to be identified with the knowledge of Torah itself. Maimonides’s transformation of the biblical and religious conception of “angel” into the Active Intellect results in the intellectualization of the biblical subjects in the Torah through the concept of the Active Intellect, which is a critical apparatus to provide knowledge for creation, prophecy, and providence.67 Indeed, on the basis of his methodology of philosophizing the concepts and contents of the Torah, the Active Intellect is not only the intermediary through which prophecy and providence reach the human realm but also a necessary apparatus, from his point of view, to explain the central biblical subjects. This thereby substantiates a conceptual affinity between the Active Intellect and Torah, which was developed into the intellectualized concept of Torah and the angelic and divine-like images of Torah in various forms within the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. Grounding his biblical exegesis on his epistemology and philosophical principles, Maimonides elaborates the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect, which was a core and generative idea in his investigation. In accordance with Maimonides’ philosophical system, the Active Intellect, which principally governs the sublunar world, also plays a critical role as a divine intermediary in a natural cosmic mechanism from which the ultimate source from God overflows to human knowledge, illuminating the human intellect and causing it 65 Pines, Guide I. 1, p. 23. 66 Pines, Guide I. 1; Guide II. 10; Guide II. 12, pp. 259–60. He also explains that the term “angel” can be understood by a structure of meaning as “the role of a messenger or someone who carries out an order.” 67 Maimonides elaborates on the discussion of creation by introducing three possible positions (scriptural, Platonic, and Aristotelian). Through the conceptual explanation of the Active Intellect for knowledge of the sublunar realm and its conjunction with the human intellect, Maimonides tries to connect between the scriptural position of God’s free will and the Aristotelian position (necessity by a cause), which asserts the eternity of the world. See Guide I. 73; Guide III. 54. Maimonides assumes that the Active Intellect as a cause of knowledge, which it possesses, stimulates the material intellect. Maimonides tried to narrow an epistemological and conceptual gap between the philosophical (the Aristotelian and Platonic) positions and the scriptural position through the idea of the Active Intellect. However, Maimonides eventually appears to reject both the Aristotelian theory of the eternity of the universe and the Neoplatonic theory of a preexistent matter before creation and argues, instead, for creation ex nihilo. See also Pines, Guide II. 21, 25.

228

Chapter 3

to pass from potentiality to actuality.68 Maimonides, basing his theory on the intellectualization of the biblical concepts and subjects of the Torah (e.g., creation, prophecy, and providence) through the concept of the Active Intellect, also moves forward with his ultimate subject: the true human intellectual perfection. It is notable that Maimonides prioritizes human intellectual perfection for the individual ultimate perfection over either actions or moral qualities.69 Daniel Rynhold explains in his article, Good and Evil, Truth and Falsity, that the fall of Adam caused the denigration of an exalted cognitive state in which humans could perceive the difference between truth and falsity. This state was a reflection of humans being created in the image of God and in His likeness, i.e., a complete intellectual perfection in which the first human was identical with the Active Intellect.70 As a result of the sin, human beings not only entered a lesser cognitive state, in which good and evil, rather than just truth and falsity, became concerns of the human intellect, but also lost the links between the commandments of the Torah and its ultimate intellectual meanings. By this logic, Maimonides necessitates the idea of devekut (i.e., conjunction with the Active Intellect) for the human intellect to recover the intellectual apprehension of the Torah, which was planned by God for the ideal state of intellectual perfection. Maimonides further elaborates on human intellectual perfection through the explanation of the degrees of prophecy and providence, which are proportionately interrelated to strengthening and empowering the attachment to the Active Intellect. Maimonides’ epistemology recognizes the limits of the human knowledge and its linguistic expressions concerning metaphysics and cosmology.71 In this context, Maimonides necessitates the Active Intellect, described as an angel, as the messenger of prophecy, while emphasizing its significant role for the perfected human intellectual state. Maimonides notes, “Know that the true reality and quiddity of prophecy consists in its being an overflow overflowing from God, may He be cherished and honored, through the intermediation of the active intellect.”72 This implies that the true reality 68 Pines, Guide II. 38, p. 377. 69 Pines, Guide III. 54, p. 635; Guide III. 2, p. 511. 70 Daniel Rynhold, “Good and Evil, Truth and Falsity: Maimonides and Moral Cognitivism,” Trumah 12 (2002): 163–64, 178–80. 71 Pines, Guide I. 32; Guide II. 19; III. 51; 54. See also Pines, “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge,” in Maimonidean Studies 3 (1992–1993): 49–103; David Blumenthal, “Maimonides’ Intellectualist Mysticism and the Superiority of the Prophecy of Moses,” Studies in Medieval Culture 10 (1981): 51–67. 72 Pines, Guide II. 36, p. 369.

An Angelic Image of Torah

229

of prophecy represents a mechanical system through the Active intellect, i.e., the different levels of prophecy and human intellectual perfection results in accordance with the levels of conjunction to the Active Intellect.73 Like prophecy, the Active Intellect plays a crucial role in providence. For Maimonides providence is that God is constantly watching over those who have obtained the overflow from God.74 For Maimonides, the Active Intellect, which is the cosmic intermediary of the intellectual overflow, underpins the mechanics of divine providence in accord with the bond (attachment) between human intellect and God, i.e., the degree of the devekut. Maimonides asserts that providence is the effect of the “divine overflow” on the rational and/or imaginative faculties through the Active Intellect.75 In explaining the development of human knowledge, Maimonides conceptualizes the ability to reach theoretical (intellectual) wisdom as “a pure function of the ability of the human intellect,” as something that can be achieved through its conjunction with the Active Intellect. Someone who has achieved conjunction can reach a state of individual immortality.76 The important point in this argument is the ultimate difference in the knowledge of God and human intellect. This proves that the degrees of prophecy and providence are fundamentally limited by Maimonides’ epistemology: its impossibility of the human intellect reaching perfect knowledge of cosmology and metaphysics and of, thereby, achieving the complete union with the Active Intellect.77 73 Guide II. 36, 37, 38. It is notable that his conception of the Active Intellect appears to be based on that of al-Farabi according to whom there are different levels of intellects, and different natural dispositions of imaginative and rational faculties. See Shlomo Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge: According to Al-Farabi, ibn Bajja, and Maimonides,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 1, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1979), 90. Maimonides also exemplifies the difference between Moses and other the prophets in order to show the different levels of prophecy. For Maimonides, being a philosopher is a prerequisite for being a prophet, and the highest degree of prophecy is profoundly related to the ultimate human perfection. Cf. Warren Z. Harvey, “A Third Approach to Maimonides’ Cosmogony-Prophetology Puzzle,” HTR 74.3 (1981): 297–98; Lawrence J. Kaplan, “Maimonides on the Miraculous Element in Prophecy,” HTR 70.3–4 (1977): 240, 247–48. 74 Through the discussion of providence of Job’s friends and the philosophical opinions concerning providence, Maimonides emphasizes that the nature of Active Intellect is key to human knowledge: “the nature of that which exists in the divine overflow coming toward us, through which we have intellectual cognition” (Pines, Guide III. 51, p. 621). See also ibid., 624–25. 75 Pines, Guide I. 73; II. 36; III. 2. 76 Pines, Guide III. 51, p. 624. 77 Maimonides, in Pines, Guide III.51, p. 624, notes, “providence watches over everyone endowed with intellect proportionately to the measure of his intellect.”

230

Chapter 3

Consequently, Maimonides implies that the degrees of prophecy and providence are proportional to the degree of the attachment to the Active Intellect and the intellectual apprehension concentrated on knowledge of God.78 In other words, the degree of prophecy and providence are proportionately interrelated to strengthening and empowering the attachment to the Active Intellect. In this sense, for Maimonides, the human intellect, through the intermediation of the Active Intellect, requires the contemplative life for the intellectual perfection, which culminates with knowledge of metaphysics in order to recover the original state, which can distinguish between “truth and falsity,” as noted earlier. In Maimonides’ system, the contemplative life aiming for the intellectual perfection involves the attachment to the study of Torah and prayers through the lens of philosophy, which can also bring forth the moral perfection of the practical realm as a teleological consequence, and thereby results in the attachment to the Active Intellect.79 In all, this examination shows that the concept of Torah, related to the angelic images of the Active intellect, plays a critical role in illustrating a holistic and teleological process for achieving the human intellectual perfection through its relationship with Active Intellect, and the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect. The Idea of Noetic Union: Maimonides, Gersonides, and Islamic Philosophers In order to better understand the philosophical background of Maimonides’s ideas of devekut and a noetic union to the Active Intellect and the relationship of these ideas to the formulation of the images of Torah, it is necessary to further examine the thought of Aristotle and the Ancient Greek commentators, as well as some medieval Islamic and Jewish philosophers. It is evident that Neoplatonized Aristotelian ideas and methodologies appear to play a significant role in Maimonides’ establishing a Jewish theological and philosophical criterion regarding the idea of devekut, i.e., the human intellect’s conjunction with the Active Intellect.80 Several Greek philosophers, such as Alexander of 2.3

78 Pines, Guide I. 72; Guide II. 4, 7, 45. The highest level of prophecy leads to the highest level of providence. 79 See Pines, Guide III. 51; III. 54, pp. 632–38. Maimonides, by this logic, appears to necessitate the need for human affects (i.e., advancing towards the worship to God with passionate love) and moral and rational virtues for promoting intellectual apprehension and achieving the ultimate human perfection. 80 Herbert A. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), 134–36. Maimonides elaborates the conception of the Active Intellect acting in union with the primary intelligence, while assigning it as the tenth order of incorporeal intelligences emanated from the First Cause.

An Angelic Image of Torah

231

Aphrodiasis and Themistius commented upon Aristotle’s obscure remarks about the active power and the activities of the human soul.81 Alexander, who was a prominent Ancient Greek commentator around the third century CE comments in detail that the Active Intellect is a “separately existing substance,” radically different from the human intellect and its capacity while the material (i.e., human) intellect has a natural capacity and potentiality.82 Themistius (317–390), another Greek commentator, also mentions that the Active Intellect is not only “an incorporeal substance” having a separate and independent existence, but also is “an immanent and inherent power” of human cognition.83 Maimonides accepts the Aristotelian distinction, as explained by Alexander, between the Active Intellect and the passive or potential (material) intellect, which is a part of the individual human soul.84 Gersonides (1288–1344) also postulates a sharp distinction between the passive or potential (material) intellect, which is a part of the individual human soul, and the Active Intellect.85 Like Maimonides, Gersonides starts with the philosophical principles of creation and the eternity of the universe, while reconciling traditional Jewish beliefs with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thought.86 Gersonides follows the Aristotelian principle that the First Cause, who possesses Will, controls the universe and brings the primary incorporeal intelligences into existence.87 The First Cause then forms the celestial spheres, which are governed by the incorporeal intelligences, out of the eternal and preexistent matter.88 In 81 82

83 84 85 86

87 88

Aristotle assumes the existence of the entity as an “active intellect,” which is related to all human thoughts and intellections, in a similar manner in which Maimonides names the “tenth intelligence.” Seymour Feldman, Gersonides: Judaism within the Limits of Reason (Oxford; Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010), 101. It seems that Alexander was the first to refer to the active powers as ‘the Agent, or Active Intellect,’ and passive or potential intellect as the material intellect. Feldman, 108. Guide I. 69, pp. 168, 219; Guide II. 11, p. 275. Like Aristotle, for Alexander, our human beings have a potential intellect (an active and passive intellect) that actualizes through God and communicates with God, which is identical with the Active Intellect. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect, 219. Jacob J. Staub (trans.), The Creation of the World According to Gersonides (Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982), III. Book Six (6), Part II: chs. 1–8. Gersonides deals with the critical questions of the eternity of creation, the immortality of human soul, the nature of prophecy, God’s knowledge of particulars, divine providence of individuals, the nature of astronomical bodies and so forth. Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect, 263. This echoes a Neoplatonic influence on Gersonides’ philosophical methodology. Ibid. For Gersonides, who adopts a model drawn from Plato’s Timaeus (e.g., Timaeus 41–42), the world was created outside of time, through a freely willing Agent (i.e., the Active Intellect). The incorporeal divine unity seems to be incompatible with the idea

232

Chapter 3

this sense, for Gersonides, the Active Intellect, which emanates from “pure thought” of God (i.e., the First Cause), operates and supervises the sublunar world.89 However, since creation ex nihilo is incompatible with physical reality, Gersonides chooses to explain the concept of the Active Intellect in accordance with the Platonic and Neoplatonic systems.90 The Active Intellect exemplifies an incorporeal form in “a de-particularized and dematerialized manner,” in a Platonic sense.91 However, in Gersonides’ theory, Plato’s doctrine gradually appears to be diminished by the influence of the Neoplatonic (i.e., emanative) concept of the Active Intellect.92 For this reason, Gersonides’ Active Intellect is not only an incorporeal, transcendent, intellectual substance, but also a derivative of God, which plays a critical role in creating the sublunar world out of the preexistent matters.93 Gersonides’ notion of the Active Intellect appears to follow the Arabic and Jewish Aristotelian consensus, i.e., the assignment of the Active Intellect to “tenth order of incorporeal intelligences.”94 In all, for Gersonides, the Active Intellect is not only the source of the natural or astrological order from “the most general form of the constellations to their last specification, which in turn contains all of the conditions of occurrence of a particular event,” but also the cause of prophecy, providence, and miracles.95 of Active Intellect, which seems closer to a Neoplatonic (emanatory) tool derived from divine unity. Maimonides appears to solve this incompatibility by arguing for the creation ex nihilo. 89 Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect, 134–36, 263; idem, “Gersonides on the Material and Active Intellects,” Studies on Gersonides (1992): 231–34; Feldman, Gersonides, 101, 120. Gersonides appears to adopt Aristotelian conception of cognition according to which knowledge is essentially a passive function in which the human mind receives its contents from external sources. This conception distinguishes two aspects in the activity of intellection or knowing: one active, the other passive. See De Anima III. v. 90 Feldman, Gersonides, 120. Nevertheless, Gersonides does not dismiss a profound nexus between them. 91 Ibid., 117–18. 92 Ibid. Gersonides later uses emanatory terminologies in order to explain the roles and functions of the Active Intellect, which consists of pure thought, and is an integrated concept of the prototype that models the sublunar world. 93 Davidson, “Gersonides on the Material and Active Intellects,” 234, 264; Feldman, Gersonides, 116, 120. It is the source of truth and being to which the Active Intellect is subordinate, i.e., the First Intellect or God. 94 Davidson, 231–34. Gersonides examines the ultimate functions of creation and astronomy in order to understand the nature of divine unity with a broader knowledge and appreciation of God. 95 Julius Guttmann, Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical Times to Franz Rosenzweig (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964), 217. The terrestrial world is governed by the Active Intellect and receives its forms. This shows a definite distinction between the creative act of God and the causality of those

An Angelic Image of Torah

233

It also possesses comprehensive and systematic knowledge as an essential potentiality bringing about the transformation and embodiment of the material intellect.96 In this discussion, it is instructive to note that the Islamic philosophical atmosphere, based as it was on Greek philosophy, greatly influenced the flourishing of Jewish philosophy in the Middle Ages.97 The thought of medieval Islamic philosophers regarding the Active Intellect and its conjunction with the human intellect appears crucial to understanding the thought of Maimonides, Gersonides, and medieval Jewish philosophy more broadly. First, Maimonides’ epistemology concerning the Active Intellect appears similar to that of al-Farabi and Avicenna’s ideas. Al-Farabi (872–951), a renowned Islamic philosopher, elaborated on the idea of God’s unique ontological status and explained that the First Existent is the First Cause of the existence of all the other existences and is also the Intellect.98 For al-Farabi, the Active Intellect, which is subordinate to the First Principle, i.e., God, illuminates a form which prepares the human mind (or intellect) for abstract ideas from the outside world and transforms every intelligible conception into action.99 In actualizing the human intellect, al-Farabi follows Aristotle’s view of the necessity of the Active essences that are produced by God. For Gersonides, miracles are not the direct result of God’s act, but are produced by the Active Intellect. 96 Davidson, “Gersonides on the Material and Active Intellects,” 263. The Active Intellect’s role in human thought is reduced by its cosmic role. For Aristotle one and the same entity cannot be both in potentiality and actuality with respect to the same activity. The basic metaphysical notion of Aristotle is the distinction between actuality and potentiality. 97 In the Geonic period, Muslim and Christian systematic philosophies were developed on the basis of Greek philosophy. See Joel L. Kraemer, “The Islamic Context of Medieval Jewish Philosophy,” The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy, ed. Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman (Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 40–43. 98 Al Farabi, Political Regime (Kitāb al-siyāsa al-madaniyya) or The Treatise on the Principles of Beings, ed. Fady M. Najjar (Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1964), Part I. 8 (pp. 32–33); Al Farabi, On the Perfect State (Mabadi Ara Ahl Al-Madinat Al-Fadilah), ed. Richard Walzer (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985), 1:1–3 (pp. 56–61); Pines, Guide, II.11, p. 275. Maimonides describes the cosmic and divine overflow from God to the intellects, and to the bodies of the spheres, and eventually to the human intellect and to the body, which is subject to generation and corruption. This implies that the Aristotelian conception of First Cause [i.e., God] and efficient causes appears to be related to the emanative theory in Platonic thought. 99 Al-Farabi, “On the Intellect,” in Classical Arabic Philosophy: An Anthology of Sources, trans. Jon McGinnis, and David C. Reisman (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2007), 68–78. See Arthur Hyman, James J. Walsh, and Thomas Williams (trans. and eds.), Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions (Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2010), 215–38.

234

Chapter 3

Intellect in transitioning the human intellect from potentiality to actuality.100 Unlike al-Farabi, for Avicenna (980–1037), the Active Intellect, as the Giver of Form, bestows a form of things, and overflows, in a Neoplatonic sense, with the intelligible forms themselves.101 In this similar sense, Maimonides also does not reject the Neoplatonic idea of a cosmic overflow (i.e., emanation) from God as part of the creative activities.102 For Avicenna, the cosmic and emanative overflow not only represents a series of ten emanating separate intellects, each of which is linked to its own celestial sphere, but also eventually leads to the emergence of the Active Intellect as the lowest of the separate intellects through a chain process. Despite the difference between al-Farabi and Avicenna, they agree that the Active Intellect is not only a separate reality outside of God and of the human mind but also plays a critical role in the forming of human knowledge. Interestingly, Averroes (= Ibn Rushd, 1126–1198), who was highly influential on medieval Jewish philosophy, rejects al-Farabi and Avicenna’s Neoplatonic descriptions of the Active Intellect, while focusing on the Active Intellect as a “form for us,” which is both immanent and transcendent.103 Averroes presupposes a two-fold existence of the Active Intellect: self-existence and embodiment in individual human beings through cooperation with the intellectual activities of the material intellect.104 He concludes that the Active Intellect radically denotes “the substantiality of the material intellect.”105 This sub100 Al-Farabi, in “On the Intellect,” 68, understands that the Active Intellect is “a purely universal and immaterial principle of intellection” and is clearly “distinguishable from the First Principle or Unmoved Mover.” 101 Majid Fakhry, Al-Fārābi: Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism: His Life, Works and Influence (Oxford: Oneworld, 2002), 74–75; Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect, 74–80. For Avicenna, the ideas contained within the Active Intellect are the source for the human intellect’s own ideas. 102 Pines, Guide II. 11, p. 275. Maimonides seems to combine Aristotelian ideas about cosmic separate intellects (in De Anima III. v. and Metaphysics) with Neoplatonic ideas (e.g., in Theology of Aristotle). 103 See Richard C. Taylor, “The Agent Intellect as ‘form for us’ and Averroes’s Critique of Al-Farabi,” Tópicos (México) 29.1 (2005): 29–51. The explanation of “form for us” stems from the actuality and potentiality of intellect in relation to object of thought. See also Aristotle, De Anima III. v, 430a. For Averroes, the Active Intellect is analogous to a Platonic Form and provides an explanation for the possible diversification of the material intellect. The Active Intellect as the object of the thought of the human intellect can be conjoined by giving up the personality of the human intellect. 104 Feldman, 115–20. The Active Intellect, which is embodied in individual humans, conveys the sense not only that it is materialized in a body but also that objects of knowledge are instantiated in and derived from bodies. 105 Ibid.

An Angelic Image of Torah

235

stantiates the implicit identification between the material intellect and the Active Intellect already suggested by Themistius, the Greek commentator.106 Themistius also interprets the Active Intellect as not only an incorporeal substance having separate and independent existence but also as an immanent and inherent power of human cognition. The Active Intellect is unaffected, immortal, and eternal. It also replicates a substance of the material intellect. This implies that the survival of the material intellect and true human perfection could only be possible by virtue of cooperation, conjunction, and union with the Active Intellect.107 The conclusion of the theory of Themistian-Averroistic conjunction was that the material intellect becomes ontologically identical to the Active Intellect.108 While Themistius implicitly identifies them, Averroes does so explicitly. However, Maimonides and Gersonides did not agree with the assertion of the Themistian-Averroistic theory. Both concretized and elaborated their epistemology under the influence of the Islamic Neoplatonized Aristotelian theories concerning the Active Intellect. The first problem for them was a fundamental metaphysical and epistemological difficulty in the Platonic metaphysics found in Averroes’ opinion that the Active Intellect as a Form is believed both to be a unitary thing and at the same time, to be demonstrated in many specific objects. The controversial issue, from a metaphysical perspective, was how to individuate the Active Intellect when it is demonstrated in many individuals.109 For this issue, Averroes postulates that the Active Intellect can be analogous to a Platonic Form, which can preserve both its unity and simplicity, while emphasizing the possibility of the diverse forms of the material intellect diversified from the Active Intellect, which serves as their Form.110 For Averroes, the human intellect can possess the Active Intellect as the object of its thought by conjoining with it in a manner that abandons the human intellect’s personality.111 In this sense, the human mind (or intellect) eventually appears as a material body through diversification in the “non-personal 106 Ibid., 108. 107 Ibid. The specific function and operation of the Active Intellect is to stimulate and bring about human intellectual activities. It is also the source of the forms that lead to the generation of substances. 108 Ibid., 115. The Active Intellect is a source and cause of knowledge because it possesses the knowledge, which stimulates the material intellect. 109 Gersonides, The Wars of the Lord, trans. Seymour Feldman (Philadelphia: Jewish Pub­ lication Society of America, 1984), I. 4, p. 79. 110 Feldman, 120. 111 Ibid. According to Averroes, the human mind signifies a complex of sense-images encompassed in the imagination and the material intellect which contains in the forms of the Active Intellect.

236

Chapter 3

material conditions,” rather than as an “incorporeal substance,” as a separable intellect. In contrast, Avicenna, following the Aristotelian concept of the intellect, maintains that each human soul is not merely the human intellect, but is “an incorporeal substance,” which is brought into existence together with the generation of a given human body.112 Averroes’ theory, however, asserts that the Active Intellect and material intellects could be numerically and substantially one, and this also necessitates that they could be ontologically one.113 Here, another fundamental metaphysical difficulty in the approaches of Avicenna and Averroes triggers the epistemological problem in terms of whether or not the human intellect can be logically and empirically non-personal (or non-individual) if immortality is construed as the survival of the human (material) intellect by means of conjunction with the Active Intellect.114 In this context, from an epistemological and theological perspective, it was necessary to provide thorough answers about how the doctrine of unity of the Intellect as a Being can be compatible with the concept of personal immortality of the human intellect (or soul) and how the human intellect can participate in the Active Intellect’s eternality, as well as how the human intellect, by virtue of the Active Intellect, can be an eternal incorporeal intelligence.115 Regarding this problem, Alexander implies that the human intellect, which can apprehend these eternal forms of the Active Intellect, will acquire its incorruptibility as “acquired intellect.”116 The consequential form of conjunction (i.e., devekut) between acquired intellects and the Active Intellect results in immortality.117 However, Gersonides rejects Alexander and Themistian-Averroistic notions of immortality. Gersonides’ ultimate goal was neither a human perfection nor a metaphysical and epistemological identification of the material intellect with 112 Davidson, Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect, 134–36. 113 Feldman, Gersonides, 115. The Active Intellect, as a source and cause of knowledge, stimulates the material intellect. This idea also explicitly appears in Abulafia’s conception of unio mystica to the Active Intellect, i.e., the unity of intellect (sekhel), the one who intellectualizes (maskil), and the he/that is who/which is intellectualized (muskal). See Sefer Sitrei Torah (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 134b. 114 Feldman, Gersonides, 115–20. The Active Intellect, which can be embodied in individual humans, can be materialized in a body, and can acquire objects of knowledge that are instantiated in and derived from bodies. 115 Gersonides, The Wars of the Lord I. 4, p. 79. In relation to the Aristotelian view, Avicenna preempts the issue by describing the human intellect as an incorporeal substance brought into existence together with the generation of a given human body. 116 Feldman, Gersonides, 117. Alexander’s version of conjunction is then a synthesis of both Platonic and Aristotelian elements. 117 The concept of immortality is conceptually interlocked with the idea of unio mystica, which I will turn to in my discussion of the Jewish mystical tradition.

An Angelic Image of Torah

237

the Active, which would blur the separation between God and the world.118 Gersonides elaborates on the philosophical explanation of a personal immortality of the human intellect as an eternal incorporeal intelligence through the Active Intellect while adjusting it with Jewish traditional strands. Gersonides primarily rejects the “eternal procession” or “continual emanation” from God, while supporting a conception of creation “by a virtue of any particular determination.”119 This distinctive conception appears in his conception of knowledge.120 Gersonides makes a distinction between the general and the particular of divine knowledge, while trying to solve the dilemma of the relationship between divine omniscience and human freedom.121 For this reason, the direct activity of God is limited even in the creation of world, and God and even the Active Intellect have no knowledge of the particulars.122 As elaborated earlier, Gersonides’ conception of the Active Intellect as a substance which leads the potential intellect to the actuality of knowledge, is grounded in the Aristotelian concept of the immortality of the human soul.123 By this logic, Gersonides discusses the “acquired intellect,” which can be achieved when the material intellect acquires knowledge of the Active Intellect.124 Like Alexander, he seemingly recognizes an “isomorphism” between the incorporeal Forms in the Active Intellect and the material forms exhibited in physical substances.125 However, for Gersonides, the knowledge of human beings is eventually not comparable to that of the Active Intellect, which can comprehend “all the 118 Feldman, Gersonides, 250. 119 As Julius Guttmann, in Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical Times to Franz Rosenzweig (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964), 213, notes, for Aristotle, the “structure of the world” is transferred to the “generation of the world as a whole” in terms of the “eternal procession” of the universe. Maimonides refuses theologically the eternity of the universe in order to save the concept of creation ex nihilo. 120 Ibid., 213. Gersonides’s theory of knowledge is based on the Aristotelian conception of cognition in De Anima III. v, according to which knowledge is essentially a passive function in which the human mind receives its contents from external sources, on the basis of the distinction of two aspects of the intellect: active and passive. 121 Ibid., 215. 122 Guttmann, 216–17. 123 In principle, Gersonides’ conception of immortality of the human soul is based on the Aristotelian conception that the human soul has the potential and actual continuity with a natural body. See also Aristotle, De Anima II. ii, 156–58. 124 Gersonides, The Wars of the Lord I. 8, pp. 170–71. Gersonides (170) notes, “They [the followers of Alexander] maintain that the material intellect is capable of immortality and subsistence when it reaches that level of perfection where the objects of knowledge that it apprehends are themselves intellects, in particular the Active Intellect  … [material intellect] is immortal when it is united with the Active Intellect.” 125 Guttman, 217–18.

238

Chapter 3

internal relations among natural phenomena.” Instead, Gersonides assumes that true human perfection merely means reaching the highest level of the human perfection through the Active Intellect, while rejecting the notion that the material intellect can be ontologically identical to the Active Intellect.126 In all, Gersonides’ conception of knowledge implies an impossibility of attaining true human intellectual perfection. Such perfection would have to involve a perfect apprehension and union with the Active Intellect, but it is impossible due to an ultimate deficit and failure of human intellectual capacity to acquire cognitive operations and achievements like the Active Intellect. Like Gersonides, Maimonides also rejects the Themistian-Averroistic notion of immortality, while elaborating the concept of an “acquired intellect,” named by Alexander as the human intellect which achieves immortality. However, Maimonides’ understanding of the devekut and noetic union (i.e., unio mystica) actually appears to be ambiguous due to his use of the concepts of gradations and differentiations of human apprehension, which determines their degree of attaining human intellectual perfection.127 On the one hand, Maimonides remarks that the inevitable limitation of the human intellect appears to hinder the achievement of the true human intellectual perfection.128 The absence of the fully actualized and perfected intellect of human beings results in the failure of maintaining the conjunction with the Active Intellect. On the other hand, Maimonides elaborates on human intellectual perfection and its ultimate term and meanings by explaining “the intermediation of the Active Intellect” toward first the “imaginative faculty,” and thereafter “the rational faculty.”129 In this context, on the basis of his theory of the Active Intellect, i.e., that God is always the Intellect in actu, which is His essence and that human knowledge-formation relies on the activities of the Active Intellect, Maimonides principally follows the Aristotelian logic and postulation that the human soul has potentially eternal life, i.e., immortality.130 Despite his ambiguous attitude toward human intellectual perfection, it is evident that Maimonides maintains the concept of immortality that the human soul has potentially eternal life in accordance with the Aristotelian logic, and thereby

126 Feldman, Gersonides, 117–18; Daniel Rynhold, An Introduction to Medieval Jewish Philosophy (London: I. B. Tauris, 2009), 181. 127 Pines, Guide II. 51, pp. 618–28; Guide I. 31, pp. 65–67; Cf. Guide I. 34, pp. 72–79; Aristotle, De Anima, Introduction, 69–70. 128 Ibid. 129 Pines, Guide II. 36, pp. 369–73. 130 Pines, Guide I. 68, p. 165.

An Angelic Image of Torah

239

substantiates the ideal of devekut, i.e., unio mystica (i.e., noetic union) to the Active Intellect.131 Through this long discussion of Maimonides’ idea of devekut to the Active Intellect, we have seen that Maimonides’ identification between the philosophical concept of the Active Intellect and the biblical concept of “angel” implies not only a conceptual change (i.e., intellectualization) of the contents of the Torah but also the conceptual affinity between the Active Intellect and Torah. In addition, Maimonides’ idea of devekut implies the human intellect’s religious experience of God through the angelic image of the Active Intellect. In Maimonides’ system, Maimonides’s idea of devekut necessitates the philosophical medium of the Active Intellect, which is profoundly related to the concept of Torah as a mediator that connects God and human beings. In this sense, the image of Torah implicitly appears in the concept, role, and image of the Active Intellect as an angelic and visible mediator, which fills the gap between the human intellect and God while maintaining God as a transcendent and non-integrated being. Above all, Maimonides’ idea of devekut to the Active Intellect provides critical insight into the development of the idea of noetic union (i.e., unio mystica) in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. 2.4 In the Thought of Abulafia and Gikatilla Based on Maimonides On the basis of Maimonides’s conception of the Active Intellect and its relationship to the ideas of devekut and noetic union, I now delve into how he, as well as Abraham Abulafia (1240–1291) and the young Joseph Gikatilla (1248–1305) – two kabbalists who were mainly influenced by the Maimonidean philosophy – understood the idea of noetic union as uniting with the Active Intellect. Before diving into the ideas of devekut and unio mystica of medieval kabbalists, it is necessary to further analyze Maimonides’ idea of noetic union, which provides critical insight into the development of the idea of union mystica and the formulation of the images of Torah in the history of Jewish mysticism. In this context, it is crucial to examine the Jewish philosophical characteristics of Maimonides in relation to the concepts of devekut and a noetic union as he articulated it in The Guide of the Perplexed. It is first instructive to note that a similar kind of noetic union in Neo-Aristotelian language appears in the account of the view of the philosopher as presented by Judah Halevi (1075–1141) in Kuzari, an apologetic work completed in 1140, which presents the views of a philosopher,

131 Davidson, “Gersonides on the Material and Active Intellects,” 205–6.

240

Chapter 3

Christian, Muslim, and Jew.132 According to the philosopher’s position, which Halevi rejects, the person of perfection recognizes the Active Intellect himself, and they become One.133 This unitive language alludes to the ideal of metaphysical union of the Neo-Aristotelian system.134 Likewise, Maimonides’ conception of devekut, as Adam Afterman analyzed, appears as a form of “integrative union” into a universal entity, i.e., a kind of eschatological noetic union, which was supported by a Neo-Aristotelian structure.135 This implies that, for Maimonides, the concept of communion in the Jewish Neo-Aristotelian tradition plays a role in fulfilling the process of union, i.e., allowing the human realized intellect to integrate into the divine intellect.136 Maimonides elaborates the philosophical concepts of devekut in connection with the Active Intellect and human intellectual perfection, which can be found in the explanations for the human intellect’s communion and union with the Active Intellect in Guide III. 51. Specifically, in the explanation of Moses’s highest rank of prophecy in Guide III. 51, Maimonides elaborates the features of the noetic union by employing “a set of terms, including ittihad,” to explain the relationship with the divine and the metaphysical realms.137 In this context, Afterman finds a major gap between the “early” and the “later” Maimonides, i.e., a contrast between Neo-Aristotelian union and Neoplatonic mystical union in the spectrum of his philosophical system.138 This shows that the significant difference between the “early” and “later” Maimonides appears to depend on the transition from material existence to noetic existence.139 The “early” Maimonides presupposes that the concept of the Active Intel­ lect is part of a hierarchical system, which can allow a form of communion or union with God according to the level of participation in the divine 132 Unlike Maimonides’ Guide, which shows an organized argumentation, Halevi composed the five parts of Kuzari as a series of discussions and arguments with a free-flowing style. Judah Halevi, The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel, trans. Hartwig Hirschfeld (New York: Schoken Books, 1968), V. 10–14 (pp. 258–72). 133 Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh: On the Language of Mystical Union in Judaism (Leiden: Brill, 2016), 104–5. 134 Ibid., 108. 135 Ibid., 103. In Maimonides’ thought, there are ambiguities aspects in the meanings of devekut in relation to the conception of the Active Intellect since Maimonides draws on both the Aristotelian and Neoplatonic systems. 136 Ibid., 104. 137 Ibid., 109. 138 Ibid., 108–9. See also Aviezer Ravitzky, “The Secrets of the Guide to the Perplexed: Between the Thirteenth and Twentieth centuries,” in Studies in Maimonides, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1990), 165–67. 139 Ibid., 109.

An Angelic Image of Torah

241

knowledge.140 The “early” Maimonides demonstrates a noetic union that leads to becoming an angelic being – or in other terms to the union of the human intellect and the Active Intellect. This can only be reached in death when fully separated from corporeality. For the “early” Maimonides, the idea of union initiates the transformative process into a next stage of existence, i.e., afterlife, but does not mean a complete union with God while alive and even in the afterlife. This implies that union with the metaphysical noetic realm is only possible postmortem.141 Before death, the human intellect gradually cleaves to the Active Intellect according to the level of its knowledge of intelligibles but does not achieve complete union. The “early” Maimonides, therefore, has a conservative attitude towards the ideal of devekut, i.e., a unitive (absorptive) experience, while alive in the world.142 By contrast, the “later” Maimonides alludes to a possibility of the noetic union while alive and at the moment of death.143 He elaborates the dynamics of noetic union with the Active Intellect at the moment of death in a Neoplatonic sense.144 In the “early” Maimonides, the noetic union can be achieved as a result of conjunction with the Active Intellect in the afterlife, while, according to the “later” Maimonides, a union with the Active Intellect itself is possible “either while barely in the body or at the moment of death or the afterlife.”145 This philosophical reasoning develops the human intellect’s conjunction with Active Intellect into a possibility of transforming the human intellect into an angelic being (i.e., a metaphysical entity) that fully identified and united with the Active Intellect at the moment of death or even while alive.146 As Afterman points out, for Maimonides, the Active Intellect is “an 140 Ibid., 116. 141 Ibid., 108–9. 142 David R. Blumenthal, “Maimonides’ Philosophic Mysticism,” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 64/66 (2009): 123. Maimonides, in a sense, might not have been greatly interested in the topic of the human intellect’s becoming one with the Divine Intellect by uniting with the Active Intellect. Blumenthal notes that despite his conservative attitude, Maimonides’ unitive experience is ultimately directed to a mystical union. 143 Elliot R. Wolfson, “Via Negativa in Maimonides and Its Impact on Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah,” in vol. 5 of Maimonidean Studies, ed. Arthur Hyman, Alfred L. Ivry, and James Diamond (New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 1990–2008), 421. Wolfson explains how Maimonides’ unitive terminologies actually have been reinforced through his students and some translators, such as Samuel ibn Tibbon, and how Maimonides came to allow for the possibility of union in the case of the ultimate act of worship and in the highest level of prophecy, i.e., Mosaic prophecy. 144 Ibid. 145 Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 107. 146 See Pines, Guide II. 6, pp. 264–65.

242

Chapter 3

abstract category of angels, not a personal or a specific angel.”147 By this logic, the perfected human being, when united with the Active Intellect, radically transforms into an angelic being. This is a transformation that goes beyond just a correlation or an engagement with an angelic being. On the basis of this theory, Maimonides’ noetic union means that the unitive character allows not only for the possibility of transforming the human (material) intellect into a being who fully contemplates noetic metaphysical ideas, but also for possibility of becoming a kind of metaphysical entity, i.e., an angelic being, when the human intellect fully unites with the Active Intellect.148 Following this reasoning, Maimonides implicitly gives the transformation of the human agent into an angel eschatological significance.149 In the “later” Maimonides, this union is possible not only as an eschatological noetic union of the afterlife but also while still alive and at the moment of death as in the rare cases of the apotheosis of Enoch and Elijah.150 Specifically, it is notable that Maimonides’ schema of eschatological noetic union had a very critical impact on the development of radical ideas of devekut in early kabbalah.151 Among the early Jewish mystics and kabbalists, Abulafia sophisticatedly incorporated Maimonides’ theory into his own idea of devekut with the Active Intellect. Abulafia’s conception of the Active Intellect and Torah and his attendant theory of devekut is grounded in Maimonides’ eschatological noetic union which, as we have seen, is itself based on Neo­ platonic and Neo-Aristotelian philosophies and theologies.152 In addition, 147 Afterman, op. cit., 125. 148 Ibid., 103. 149 Ibid., 119. 150 Ibid., 119. Afterman also notes, “the pre-medieval notion of transformation through ascension to a higher plane of existence was interpreted as a mystical process, in which the human (as a spiritual entity) unites with the angelic being, associated usually with metaphysical entities, such as the ‘active intellect,’ ‘Nous,’ or a divine grade (sefirah), thus transforming the human into that entity” (126). Maimonides describes the union of Moses and the Patriarchs with the Active Intellect as “a kiss of death.” See Pines, Guide III. 51, pp. 623–28. This also implies that Mosaic prophecy eventually appears as a particular form of unio mystica, which operates along with a divine-like image of the Active Intellect as a hidden mediator or even without a mediation of the Active Intellect and thereby formulates a God-like image of Torah. 151 See Yossef Swartz, “Magic, Philosophy and Kabbalah: The Mystical and Magical Interpre­ tation of Maimonides in the Later Middle Ages,” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 64–66 (2009): 99–132 (Hebrew). It can be inferred that the thirteenth century Jewish philosophers and kabbalists generally recognized the idea of the conjunction between the human soul and the metaphysical realms as reflecting closeness with God. 152 Ibid.; Idel, Abraham Abulafia: An Ecstatic Kabbalist (Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos, 2002), 145, 149. Maimonides’ schema of eschatological noetic union was essential to the

An Angelic Image of Torah

243

Maimonides’s explanation of Moses’s highest rank of prophecy in The Guide of the Perplexed III. 51, which was examined earlier, is profoundly related to Abulafia’s idea of devekut.153 Like Maimonides, Abulafia believes that prophecy can be attained only when one is in a state of conjunction with the Active Intellect.154 The Active Intellect can lead the human soul from potentiality to actuality through the prophecy, which is generated from the intellectual (rational) and imaginative faculties of the human soul in its two main modes: dream or vision (‫)מארה‬.155 For both Maimonides and Abulafia, prophecy is related to the conception of shefa (influx), which is emanated from the supernal realms in line with a Neoplatonic thought.156 The prophetic revelation comes through the intermediation of the Active Intellect, that is, it is the result of a divine overflow, or emanation, upon the rational and imaginative faculties.157 Maimonides is skeptical about the possibility of perfect prophecy while awake or asleep – something that could only occur through the perfection of the rational and imaginative faculties. According to Maimonides the only exception is Moses.158 A critical point that distinguishes Abulafia from the approach of Maimonides is that Abulafia does not accept the superiority of Moses’ prophecy. Rather, he develops the concept of prophecy into “the supreme realization of the [intellectual] capacities of human consciousness” in terms of intensifying his personal perception of the mystical experiences.159 Following this logic, Abulafia notably expresses the resemblance of his prophetic experience to that of the biblical prophets and even the superiority of development of key ideas and practices of the early kabbalists, including Abulafia. Abulafia’s views on prophecy and unio mystica, were, in turn, influential on the later kabbalists. His conception of God is not the Neoplatonic God but is close to the Aristotelian God. 153 Idel, Abraham Abulafia, 148–58; Pines, Guide III. 51. 154 Idel, Abraham Abulafia, 159. In a manner similar to Maimonides, for Abulafia, prophecy is an emanation entered into human’s rational and imaginative faculties by the Divine Being through the medium of the Active Intellect. See Maimonides, Guide, II. 36; Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar II (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1957–61), 280–306. 155 Pines, Guide II. 36, II. 39; II. 44, pp. 394–95. For Maimonides, a vision and a dream are different degrees of prophecy. 156 Idel, Abraham Abulafia, 145, 149; Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 156; Scholem, Major Trends, 131–34. 157 Ibid., Guide II. 37, p. 367. 158 Ibid., Guide, II. 44, p. 402. Maimonides particularly tried to establish a theoretical principle for prophecy that presupposed the idea of devekut and the superiority of Moses’s prophecy. Regarding Moses, Maimonides says, “For a prophet can hear only in a dream of prophecy that God has spoken to him. Moses our Master, on the other hand, heard Him from above the ark-cover, from between the two cherubim.” See Guide II. 45, pp. 395–403. 159 Abulafia, Ḥayyei ha-Nefesh (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2011), 63.

244

Chapter 3

his own prophecy to that of Moses, while at the same time identifying himself as the “prophet-messenger” of a higher type than is possible for a “merely” mystical-contemplative person who receives the influx (shefa) of wisdom.160 In other words, for Abulafia, the ideal of devekut is to reach the highest level of prophecy through conjunction with the Active Intellect. More importantly, on the basis of the Maimonidean theory that utilizes a philosophical allegory, as noted earlier, Abulafia establishes the “path of the [divine] names” (‫השמות‬ ‫ )דרך‬in the Torah as references to special forms of the human intellect and separate intellects, including the Active Intellect, which I will further discuss later in this study.161 Through this theory, for Abulafia, the ideal of devekut is to reach the highest level of prophecy through conjunction with the Active Intellect, which is identified with the Torah and the Divine Name in the Torah.162 In Sefer ʾOr ha-Sekhel and Ḥayye ha-ʿOlam Ha-Ba‌ʾ, Abulafia associates the letters of the divine names in the Torah with the Active Intellect as the tenth sphere which “controls all the higher and lower realms,” and which is the apparatus for the creation of the world.163 By this logic, Abulafia uniquely tries to advance his mystical experiences and visions into a unique case, i.e., an integrative union that surpasses the rationalization process of Maimonides’

160 Ibid., 150–52. Cf. Abulafia, Sefer Haftarah (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 34, 38. In the introduction, the process of composition of Sefer ha-Geʾulah is described as a similar act to that of the prophets. See Abulafia, Sefer ha-Geʾulah (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 73b. 161 Like Maimonides, Abulafia allegorically connects the specific biblical terms (angels and divine names) to the intellect as a universal character. See Idel, “Allegory and Divine Names in Ecstatic Kabbalah.” in Interpretation and Allegory, ed. Jon Whitman (Leiden: Brill, 2000), 317–48. For Abulafia, the Tetragrammaton appears to designate the Agent Intellect. See Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), fols. 23b–24a. The conception of the Torah as a continuum of divine names can be significantly found in vol. 1 of Nahmanides’ Commentary on the Torah, ed. Charles B. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1959), 7. Nahmanides also notes that there are the two paths of reading the Torah: the path of the [divine] names and the path of the commandments. 162 Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1989), 111. 163 Ibid., 38. See Abulafia, Sefer ʾOr ha-Sekhel (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 1998), 46. The Active Intellect, which is the tenth sphere, i.e., the sphere [or wheel] of the letters (‫הוא גלגל‬ ‫)עשירי ר״ל גלגל האותיות‬, and which is “the most sublime of all the spheres of existence,” is identified with the sphere of the Torah which controls the supernal and lower orders. Refer to the English translation in Idel, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, 38. In addition, Abulafia, in Ḥayye ha-ʿOlam Ha-Ba (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 9, explicitly identifies Torah with the Active Intellect. For Abulafia, the numerical value of the Tree of Life (‫ )עץ החיים‬is identified with the numerical value of Israel, and it secret implies the secret of Israel (‫ )סוד ישרא״ל‬and of the Active Intellect (‫)שכ״ל הפוע״ל‬.

An Angelic Image of Torah

245

eschatological noetic union.164 In this sense, Abulafia’s strong desire for the devekut, i.e., union with the Active Intellect appears to be similar to the paradigm deriving from the radical positions of Islamic philosophers (e.g., Averroes). Abulafia’ conception of a state of ecstasy and unio mystica means overcoming the boundaries between the human intellect and the Active Intellect, and even God. Therefore, Abulafia’s creative and radical approach explicitly contradicts a non-negotiable doctrine of Maimonides, e.g., the ultimate impossibility of the unity of the human intellect and God. Furthermore, Abulafia tries to further conceptualize his own ideas of devekut and unio mystica by combining the Jewish mystical ideas, in a larger kabbalistic standpoint, with the philosophical components (Aristotelian and Neoplatonic). In this vein, it is crucial to note that in order to explain his conception of unio mystica over Maimonides’ noetic union, Abulafia strategically combines the Active Intellect and other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron and shekhinah, which are found in the Jewish mystical traditions, and are significantly based on the late antique and medieval Jewish mystical (e.g., the Enochic, Hekhalot, and Hasidei Ashkenazi) traditions. Indeed, he conglomerates the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions manifest from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages.165 This illustrates a gradual change in the relationship between Metatron and the conception and images of the shekhinah in the Enochic, midrashic, and Hekhalot literature. In this literature, the shekhinah appears as an angelic image of Torah which is also identified with Metatron and Sar Torah.166 It is notable that the heritage of merkavah mysticism, as it relates to the image of shekhinah found in the talmudic, Enochic, and Hekhalot literature, reappears in the images of kavod in the literature of Hasidei Ashkenaz. As Schäfer notes, the speculation of the dimensions of the body of God in Shiur Qomah is connected to the descriptions of the angelic beings, such as Metatron and shekhinah in merkavah (Enochic) literature.167 As examined earlier, a dual conception of shekhinah (i.e., visual kavod above invisible kavod) allows for a new conception of God and Torah that operates 164 Abulafia, Sefer ha-Geʾulah, 73b. Hans Jonas, in “Myth and Mysticism: A Study of Objectification and Interiorization in Religious Thought,” JR 49 (1969): 328, remarks, “having an objective theory, the mystic goes beyond theory.” 165 See Urbach, “The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period,” in Studies in Mysticism and Religion Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday by Pupils, Colleagues and Friends 1 (1967): 1–28. The angelic descriptions of Metatron (e.g., as the Prince of the Divine Presence, and as a heavenly voice came out from the presence of the shekhinah) of 3 Enoch appear to be dependent on the talmudic sources. See also Philip S. Alexander, “3 Enoch and the Talmud,” JSJ 18.1 (1987): 40–68. 166 See Odeberg, 3 Enoch, xvii; xlv; Schäfer, Synopse, §§ 235–238. 167 See Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 306–15.

246

Chapter 3

in a combined framework of divine immanence and divine transcendence.168 In addition, the angelic image of shekhinah of merkavah mysticism is explicitly identified in Sefer Hasidim with the kavod understood as a visible glory and as a radiance of the ḥashmal.169 The anthropomorphic and mythologized descriptions of shekhinah as a visible kavod are a symbolic manifestation of His presence in the world rather than an expression of the divine essence.170 As Wolfson notes, the speculations about the shekhinah in the literature of Hasidei Ashkenaz represent it as an angelic image of a created glory, i.e., kavod, rather than of God Himself.171 In all, the above analysis demonstrates that the images of the shekhinah and Metatron that are part of the merkavah vision and are described as a created angelic agent of God or a hypostatic being emanated from God. The angelic images of Metatron and shekhinah as a visible kavod in relation to the merkavah vision corroborate the continuity of the angelic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah as a visualized and created mediator, such as Philo’s Logos in the Second Temple and early rabbinic periods. The specific literary and exegetic strategies, which formulate both the angelic images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, explicitly appear throughout the rabbinic, late antique, and medieval Jewish mystical (Enochic, Hekhalot, and Hasdei Ashkenazi) literature. It is important to recall that the images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, as an angelic mediator has a connection to the angelic images of Metatron and shekhinah in the Enochic, rabbinic, Hekhalot and Ashkenazi literature. Furthermore, these continuities and connections between the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah substantially reemerge in the images of the hypostatic notions of the sefirotic system found within the kabbalistic (mainly Abulafian, Gikatillan, and Zoharic) traditions, including, among others, those of Abulafia, Gikatilla, and Zoharic literature. I will turn to kabbalistic traditions shortly, but prior to doing so, I would first note that this function and image of shekhinah as a created kavod also appears in works as disparate as those of Saadia Gaon, Maimonides, Yehuda Halevi, 168 Ibid. A kavod above the kavod indicates dualistic conception of shekhinah, which appears parallel to the dualistic conception of ḥokhmah, i.e., upper ḥokhmah and lower ḥokhmah. 169 Scholem, Major Trends, 110–15. 170 See Schäfer, §§ 695–704. 171 Elliot R. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and imagination in medieval Jewish mysticism (Princeton University Press, 1997), 13–51. It is evident that the epiphany of God in Ex 24:9–11, Isa 6:1, and Ezek 1 are the most foundational sources for the early Jewish visionary tradition that flourished in post biblical Jewish tradition in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods.

An Angelic Image of Torah

247

and the Bahir.172 Saadia Gaon’s doctrine of the first-created glory (kavod, i.e., shekhinah) is identified with both the two forms (inner and outer) of glory, as a created entity, which mainly appear in the Hasidei Ashkenazi literature.173 As Scholem notes, in the Ashkenazi literature, the image of shekhinah, as a created entity separate from God, is related not only to the angelic image of “His Throne of Glory” but also symbolically to the image of personified Wisdom (Prov 8:22), which convey an angelic image of Torah.174 These angelic images of Metatron and shekhinah as created entities explicitly appear in Abulafia’s works, such as Sefer Sitrei Torah and ʾOẓar ʿEden Ganuz, which demonstrate the identification of various hypostatic notions of Torah with the Active Intellect.175 Furthermore, Abulafia, who interprets the Maimonidean thought along kabbalistic lines, focuses on the ideas of devekut and unio mystica to the Active Intellect, which he identifies with hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron, Yahoʾel, and shekhinah.176 For Abulafia, the prophetic speech appears not only as the flow received by the power of the imagination as is also the case in 172 Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise II. x, 99 (p. 121). Halevi, Kuzari IV. 3; Pines, Guide I. 64, and 76. The conception of a created kavod originally can be found in the work of Saadia. See Scholem, Major Trends, 111–13. Scholem, in Origins of Kabbalah, 165, also discusses the origin of the “shekhinah as an autonomous entity” by showing the difference between the talmudic source, b. Sanh. 104b, and the late Midrash Mishle, 47a. He (165) notes that “it became possible only after unknown aggadists of a later period hypostatized the shekhinah into a divine quality distinct from God himself and capable of engaging in dialogue with him.” He (167) also notes that, “the fragments of the oldest stratum of the Bahir, whose gnostic character we analyzed earlier, seem to argue in favor of the first hypostasis. Essential for the kabbalistic symbolism was the manner in which the gnostic motif the daughter of light and the aggadic motif of the ecclesia of Israel coalesced in the new conception of the shekhinah” as a hypostatized entity. See secs. 43, 45, 52, 98 in The Book Bahir, ed. Daniel Abrams (Hebrew; Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1994). 173 Scholem, Major Trends, 110–15. Scholem (111) analyzes that the kavod, which conveys the images of a separate entity or a hypostatic creator, firstly appears in Saadia’s doctrines. As Scholem notes, the shekhinah as daughter is symbolically related to the tenth sefiah, malkhut of God in the Bahiric sources. See also Dan, Torat ha-Sod shel Ḥasidut Ashkenaz (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968), 119–29, and n. 206 in Scholem, Origins, 184. 174 Scholem (164) notes that “the Throne of the shekhinah [is] substituted for the Throne of Glory” in the Enochic and Ashkenazi literature. See Scholem, Origins, 184–86, 178–80; Odeberg, 3 Enoch, I. vii, 22–33. Dan, Torat ha-Sod, 55–58, also notes that the main interest of the authors of the Hasidei Ashkenazi literature was the relationship of the dualistic doctrines of kavod in relation to the secret of prayers to the secret and images of Torah. 175 Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 132b; idem, ʾOẓar ʿEden Ganuz (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 760, 2000; 2004/5), 12a. Interestingly, Abulafia conceptualizes prophecy or mystical experience as a dialogue between a human being and his inner essence, i.e., the intellect. 176 Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 132b; Lachter, “Kabbalah, Philosophy, and the Jewish-Christian Debate,” 35–36.

248

Chapter 3

medieval Aristotelian epistemology, but also as the flow of the Divine Torah intrinsic in the Active Intellect. The source of true prophecy, therefore, is derived from the Active Intellect, which Abulafia also identifies with the shekhinah. Abulafia, in Sefer Sitrei Torah, further identifies the Torah, described as a “garment” for the light and glory of God (i.e., shekhinah), with the Active Intellect, which contains “the forms of all existence.”177 In Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot, he describes the activities of the Active Intellect, understood as the shekhinah, of bringing a prophetic speech from potentia to actuality.178 As such, the activities of the Active Intellect are similar to the roles and functions of Torah, and the Active Intellect functions as a perfect mediator between human beings and God. Abulafia eventually concretizes the similarity between the shekhinah and Torah in the noetic system of the Active Intellect.179 By this logic, Abulafia exegetically combines the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the Active Intellect, Metatron, and shekhinah and thereby formulates the images of Torah, especially an angelic image of Torah in a philosophic ethos. Interestingly, Abulafia’s methodology appears to have been deepened and complicated by Joseph Gikatilla, who was a thirteenth-century Castilian kabbalist, and studied with Abulafia.180 Despite his rejection of the general approach of the philosophers, Gikatilla’s early seminal work, Ginnat ʾEgoz, displays Abulafia’s methodology, which combines the philosophical concepts, such as the Active Intellect, with the kabbalistic concepts, such as the shekhinah, one of the sefirotic entities.181 Like Abulafia’s linguistic-ecstatic kabbalah, Gikatilla associates the concept of Active Intellect with a theory of mystical transformation originating in Sefer Yetsirah.182 Shlomo Blickstein points out 177 Sefer Sitrei Torah, 124a; Sefer ha-Zohar, ed. Reuven Margaliot (Jerusalem, 1964), Zohar I. 34b. See Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar II (Jerusalem: Bialik, 1971), 369. For Abulafia, in a manner similar to the Active Intellect, the roles and functions of Torah control all deeds and activities of both human beings and celestial spheres. 178 Abulafia, Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), fols. 23a–b; Idel, Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1989), 22, 36–37. 179 Abulafia, Ḥayye ha-ʿOlam Ha-Ba‌ʾ, 41; Herbert A. Davidson, “Alfarabi and Avicenna on Active Intellect,” Viator 3 (1972): 126–27. 180 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism and Merkavah Imagery in the Zohar,” in Studies in the Literature of Jewish Thought Presented to Rabbi Dr. Alexander Safran, ed. Moshe Hallamish and Alei Shefer (Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1990), 205. The connection between letter symbolism and merkavah imagery can be found in Gikatilla’s Ginnat ʾEgoz and de Leon’s early work. 181 Cf. Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz (Hanau: n.p., 1615), 315, 330–38. 182 Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 172: Idel, Abraham Abulafia, 145, 149. Idel notes that Abulafia’s prophetic or linguistic-ecstatic kabbalah is primarily based on the book of creation (Sefer Yetsirah) and its Ashkenazi interpretations. In addition, Abulafia’s theory of mystical transformation, which is based on Maimonides’ Neo-Aristotelian theology, is

An Angelic Image of Torah

249

that in Gikatilla’s Ginnat ʾEgoz, which can be considered a commentary on Sefer Yetsirah, there appear many philosophical terms related to a theory of cosmological emanation, which combines Maimonidean and Neoplatonic metaphysics.183 In this sense, we can detect in Ginnat ʾEgoz a strong influence of Abulafia’s interpretation of Sefer Yetsirah, an interpretation which combines a philosophical and kabbalistic conception of Torah. In this regard, Yehuda Liebes places Ginnat ʾEgoz within the history of ancient Jewish traditions related to the commentaries on Sefer Yetsirah, while situating it between Abulafia’s ecstatic kabbalah and the Zoharic kabbalah.184 Ephraim Gottlieb clarifies that Gikatilla’s works were composed in three phases: halakhic (or theurgical) writings, works about letter permutation (tzerufei otiyyot) as reflected in Ginnat ʾEgoz, and the theosophic works, which include, among others, Shaʿarei ʾOrah and Shaʿar ha-Niqqud.185 Gikatilla, in Ginnat ʾEgoz, recognizes that philosophers are limited due to “the absence of the knowledge of the foundation of the Torah which is the source of all true science.”186 Despite his rejection of the general approach of the philosophers, Gikatilla’s innovative approach in Ginnat ʾEgoz is found in his use of linguistic techniques (e.g., letter combination and permutation), which resonates with Abulafia’s method of combining the philosophical and ecstatic kabbalistic concepts. Abulafia’s linguistic technique, which is called “path of (divine) names,” also appears in Gikatilla’s Ginnat ʾEgoz, which deals with the science of letter‑combination (‫ )חכמת הצירוף‬of the divine names.187 Abulafia’s conception of the Active Intellect has a critical implication for the thought of Gikatilla insofar as it explains the idea of devekut and the cosmological system at the basis of the maʿaseh merkavah. Gikatilla develops the idea of devekut through the angelic images of the Active Intellect relating to merkavah imagery, which are conceptual mediators between God and human beings. This shows that Abulafia’s correlation between the Hebrew letters and merkavah imagery appears to be deepened and made more sophisticated in Gikatilla’s methodology, which uses the linguistic techniques and symbolism in formulating the images of Torah.188 ultimately aimed at achieving the identification of the human soul (or intellect) with the Divine Name. See Idel, “Reification of Language in Jewish Mysticism,” 42–79. 183 Shlomo Blickstein, “Between Philosophy and Mysticism,” 120. 184 See Liebes, Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira (Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000), 174; idem, “How the Zohar was Written,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 20–25 (Hebrew). 185 Ephraim Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbalistic Literature, ed. Joseph Hacker (Hebrew; Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1976), 263; Azzan Yadin, “Theosophy and Kabbalistic Writing,” Peʿamim 104 (2005): 41–42. 186 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 106; Scholem, Major Trends, 80, 173. 187 Idel, KNP, 97–103. 188 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 205.

250

Chapter 3

Gikatilla further appears to combine philosophical concepts, such as the Active Intellect, with the shekhinah, the lowest level of the sefirotic system.189 It is notable that, as Wolfson points out, the images of Torah in Gikatilla’s writings are intertwined with the sefirotic system through a linguistic symbolism, which appears throughout the classical and late antique texts of merkavah mysticism.190 Ginnat ʾEgoz synthetically transforms the secrets of the maʿaseh mmerkavah of Ezekiel through the letter-combination of the divine names into the philosophical (Aristotelian and Neoplatonic) concepts, in a manner similar to Abulafia’s linguistic techniques.191 He deals with the mysteries of the letters of the Torah by delineating a semantic and thematic connection between merkavah speculation and letter symbolism.192 Furthermore, in Ginnat ʾEgoz (as well as Shaʿar ha-Niqqud), the idea of devekut appears to play a critical role in connecting the mystery of merkavah imagery to the inner entities of the letters of the divine names that appear in the Torah.193 The connection of merkavah imagery to the images of angelic beings can be inferred from Maimonides’ interpretation of maʿaseh merkavah in Guide III. 1–7 and Abulafian theory of maʿaseh markavah.194 By this logic, the divine names in the letters of the Torah appear as angelic powers or celestial beings in a linguistic and mystical relationship with the merkavah imagery.195 This shows that Gikatilla establishes his idea of devekut on the basis of Abulafian and Maimonidean schema of eschatological noetic union. Interestingly, Scholem and Asi Farber-Ginat note the resemblance of Moses de Leon’s ʾOr Zaruʿa to Ginnat ʾEgoz.196 Farber-Ginat shows that, from a text 189 Gikatilla, Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, printed in Sefer ʾArzei Levanon (Venice: Giovanni di Gara, 1601), fol. 38a (Appendix, 6), 39b. Cf. Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 221. 190 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 205. See also Elke Morlok, Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011), 73. 191 Idel, KNP, 97–103; Idel, Abraham Abulafia, 195–200. 192 Morlok, 209. 193 Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, SUNY Series in Judaica (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994), 59, 278; Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 221; Lachter, “Kabbalah, Philosophy, and the Jewish-Christian Debate,” 33. 194 Pines, Guide I. 70–71, pp. 171–75; II. 10, pp. 271–73; III. 7, p. 430. These passages show not only that the chariot’s various aspects correspond to different cosmological parts, but also that the charioteer corresponds to the transcendent divine being. 195 Morlok, 47. This angelic being can be approachable only in “the atoms of language” which can create the merkavah for the divine. 196 Scholem, “Eine unbekannte mystische Schrift des Mose de Leon,” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums 3/4 (1927): 121, n. 3.; Asi Farber-Ginat, “On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de Leon’s Early Kabbalistic System,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1983): 67–96 (Hebrew). Scholem and Farber-Ginat regard ʾOr Zaruʿa as non-theosophic. Through two newly identified fragments, Bar-Asher shows new evidence

An Angelic Image of Torah

251

in Sod Darke ha-ʾOtiyot, a text that is considered as a source for ʾOr Zaruʿa, a combination of the philosophic and mythic features is included. As such, this text embraces both Maimonidean and theosophic approaches.197 Tishby and Liebes also analyze the mixture of philosophical speculation and linguistic (or mystical) mysticism in ʾOr Zaruʿa through a presentation of de Leon’s intellectual development, while showing the relationship between ʾOr Zaruʿa and Gikatilla’s Ginnat ʾEgoz.198 The relationship specifically appears in the explanations regarding the nexus, found in texts, between angelic beings and the merkavah imagery. In de Leon’s ʾOr Zaruʿa we find the following expressions of this nexus: “1) the four bearers of the chariot, i.e., the four archangels: Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Nuriel; 2) the supernal chariot, i.e., Metatron or the first intellect which derives from God; 3) the three worlds, i.e., the world of separate intellects, the world of celestial spheres and the world of terrestrial matter; 4) the four corners of the lower world.”199 Likewise, Gikatilla also articulates the nexus between angelic beings and merkavah imagery by classifying them as three groups: ḥashmal, ḥayyot, and ʾofanim, which reflect three parts of the medieval Aristotelian (and Maimonidean) classification of the cosmos: the separate intellects, the celestial spheres, and the terrestrial elements.200 Employing a linguistic symbolism, Gikatilla identifies the three groups with the twenty-two letters of the Torah: 1) ḥashmal: “those [letters] which move [others] with an intelligible movement”; 2) ḥayyot: “those [letters] with

about the original structure of ʾOr Zaruʿa, and about its relationship with Sefer ha-Neʿelam. See Avishai Bar-Asher, “New Fragments from ‘Sefer ʾOr Zaruʿa’ and ‘Sefer Ha-Neʿlam,’” Tarbiz 83.4 (2015): 635–42 (Hebrew). 197 Ibid.; Asi Farber-Ginat, “A New Passage from Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Introduction to Ginat Egoz,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought I (1981): 159–60 (Hebrew); Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers: Myth and Philosophy in Early Kabbalah (PhD diss., New York University, 2004), 314–15. In Sod Darke ha-ʾOtiyot, the Active Intellect is not the same as the tenth intellect of the medieval Aristotelian tradition but appears to be related to the highest intellect or ḥokhmah, which is translated as nous (i.e., the Neoplatonic hypostasis) in its closest proximity to God. I will discuss this in detail later in this study. 198 De Leon, ʾOr Zaruʿa, 251, 283, 285; Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1:95–96; Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, trans. Arnold Schwartz, Stephanie Nakache, and Penina Peli (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993), 87; Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 318–25. 199 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 203; Altmann, “Moses de Leon’s Sefer ʾOr Zaruʿa: Introduction, Critical Text, and Notes,” Qovetz al Yad 9 (1980): 282–83, 288–90 (Hebrew). In ʾOr Zaruʿa, which contains a classification similar to that in Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, de Leon identifies alef-Michael, bet-Raphael, gimmel-Gabriel, dalet-Nuriel, which are identified as the “secret of the chariot” (sod ha-merkavah), and which are also referred to as the first four letters, ‫אבגד‬. 200 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 203–5.

252

Chapter 3

an intelligible movement”; 3) ʾofanim: “those [letters] which are moved.”201 Through this schema, Gikatilla explicates a profound relationship between the linguistic divisions and arrangements and the cosmological structure.202 By explicating the connection between the linguistic features and cosmological structure, he involves the three groups of letters with the merkavah imagery.203 Gikatilla specifically connects ḥashmal to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton in relation to maʿaseh merkavah.204 For Gikatilla, the letter combination of the Tetragrammaton in connection with maʿaseh merkavah implies a mystical and hermeneutical mechanism for revealing the secret of the merkavah imagery and decoding its cosmological functions.205 Gikatilla, in Ginnat ʾEgoz, further tries to associate the meanings of the cosmic orders, i.e., the features of ha-teva (Nature), with the name Elohim and kisse (Throne).206 This association is based on the thought of Abulafia and Maimonides. As previously noted, for Abulafia, basing himself on the thought of Maimonides, the Active Intellect, which is identified as an angelic being and functions as an intermediary between God and humans, is connected to metaphysical or linguistic entities of the divine realms.207 Abulafia’s identification of Elohim and ha-teva is supplemented by means of his interpretation of Metatron as an angelic intermediary (i.e., Metatron or angelus interpres).208 Abulafia conceptually identifies Elohim with Metatron, which is identified with the Active Intellect, and thereby denotes the content and its interpretations of the divine 201 Morlok, 210; Gikatilla, Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, fols. 33a–38b. 202 Gikatilla, Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, fols. 36–38b. 203 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 210; Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, fols. 33a, 33b, 36–38b. The identification visions of celestial beings of merkavah imagery (i.e., ḥayyot) with the letters also appears in Tiqqunei Zohar. 204 Gikatilla, Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, 37b; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 210–11. 205 Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1988), 30–37, 100–105; Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 339; Idel, KNP, 97–103; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 212. 206 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, fols. 5c, 5d, 12d, 13a, 13b. The gematria of Elohim (= Ha-Kisse), which already appeared in the works of Abulafia, recurs in Gikatilla’s work several times. Unlike Nature, there is an explanation of Elohim as a created hypostatic entity, which emerged with the creation of the world. 207 Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 126, 152; Idel, KNP, 243–44; idem, “Defining Kabbalah,” 97–122; idem, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 5–7. As we have examined for Maimonides (Guide II. 36, 37), through the medium of the Active Intellect, prophecy is an emanation into the human’s rational and imaginative faculties. Abulafia incorporates this theory of prophecy into his own idea of devekut and unio mystica to the Active Intellect. This logic indicates that both the Active Intellect and a being united with the Active Intellect can be angelic beings. 208 Afterman, op. cit., 186; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 6.

An Angelic Image of Torah

253

names of Torah.209 By this logic, Abulafia creates his own ideas of devekut and noetic union to the hypostatic notions in relation to the divine names of Torah by merging the languages of Neo-Aristotelianism and Neoplatonism with the rabbinic and kabbalistic concepts, such as Metatron and shekhinah.210 On the basis of Abulafia’s theory, Gikatilla further elaborates on the relationship between Elohim and the Tetragrammaton.211 Elohim, in Ginnat ʾEgoz, stands not only for an angelic being (i.e., Metatron or a mediator created by Ein Sof through ḥokhmah), but also for the separate intellects, especially the Active Intellect as the tenth intellect, which is eventually identified with Torah.212 This implies that both Abulafia and Gikatilla create an angelic image of Torah as a visible mediator in the images of the hypostatic notions in the merkavah imagery in relation to the divine names, which combine philosophic, rabbinic, and kabbalistic concepts, in order to express the mystic experiences of devekut. In summary, this examination shows not only how the Active Intellect is conceptually related to other hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, Metatron, shekhinah, and the divine names, but also how the devekut to the Active Intellect was developed into the idea of noetic union or unio mystica in the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. In the thought of Maimonides, Abulafia, and Gikatilla, the idea of devekut to the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Active Intellect and Metatron in relation to the divine names, implies the human soul (or intellect)’s mystical experience of God through the Active Intellect as an angelic and visible 209 Idel, Abraham Abulafia, 16–50, 240–47, 293–97. The shared identity of the Active Intellect and the Torah is related to their similar roles of ordering all phenomena of the material world. The Tetragrammaton stands for the divine Being when standing by Himself, while Elohim is identified with “the divine anthropomorphic structure,” as in Shiur Qomah, and is the first created entity. It is also notable that the idea of creation through the naming of the divine names appears in Memar Marqah IV. 2, 7, and 11. Elohim appears as a creative agent who created the world and “sealed the whole.” The Great Name, the Tetragrammaton is prioritized in the mentions of the divine names. For instance, Memar Marqah IV. 11, the letter Aleph speaks: “I was made the first [of the letters] of the Great Name by which our Lord brought the world into being.” 210 Idel, “Enoch is Metatron,” 234–37. As Afterman, in And They Shall Be One Flesh, 186, notes, the human soul’s conjunction and union with or, in other terms, absorptive transformation into the Active Intellect can also be found in the works of R. Isaac of Acre, such as Sefer Meʾirat ʿEinayim. 211 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 22a. 212 In a manner similar to Maimonides and Abulafia, for Gikatilla, the identification of the Active Intellect with the Torah is related to their similar characters ordering all phenomena of the material world. Cf. Shlomo Pines, Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his Predecessors (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1967), 4–5.

254

Chapter 3

mediator. In this sense, this idea of devekut necessitates an angelic image of the (Logos-centered) hypostatic notions of Torah as a visible mediator between God and human beings. This substantiates that the angelic image of Torah, which mainly appears in the images of the Active Intellect, is more concretely revealed in the context of devekut, which bridges the gap between the human intellect and transcendent and non-integrated God. As examined earlier, Maimonides’ conception of the Active Intellect, which is mainly identified with the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, was predominantly transferred into Abulafia’s conceptions of the Active Intellect with regard to the idea of devekut. Maimonides provides Abulafia with critical philosophical and hermeneutical principles for understanding the idea of devekut in relation to the Active Intellect. Abulafia develops Maimonides’ theory of prophecy while following Maimonides’ theological and philosophical positions regarding the Active Intellect. In comparison to Maimonides, Abulafia radically extends the meaning of devekut to union with the Active Intellect. Unlike Maimonides, Abulafia, like the Islamic philosophers, boldly appears to cross the boundaries of the separation between the human intellect and the Active Intellect. For Maimonides and Gersonides, the idea of the human intellect’s communion, or even union, with the Active Intellect supposes a non-negotiable border between God and human beings, which allowed them to preserve divine simplicity. By contrast, Abulafia develops Maimonides’ idea of devekut into a new theory of the devekut by combining and reconceptualizing kabbalistic and philosophical (Aristotelian and Neoplatonic) terminologies rather than just relying on a specific philosophical tradition. In comparison to Maimonides, Abulafia actively uses Neoplatonic philosophy (i.e., the emanation theory) for the concept of devekut to the Active Intellect to enhance the position of the mystical and kabbalistic traditions. Abulafia, in the process of integrating the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions, focuses on the devekut to the Active Intellect, which is identified with both the sefirah of shekhinah and Metatron. This shows that Abulafia elaborated not only a way of rendering the mystical experiences of divine realms explainable and understandable using a philosophical logic but also a method of achieving the devekut and unio mystica through the linguistic technique of letter combination and permutation of the Tetragrammaton. Principally based on Abulafia’s theory and linguistic system, Gikatilla’s Ginnat ʾEgoz also formulates an angelic image of Torah, which is identified with shekhinah or the Active Intellect, and is accessible for the devekut of the human soul (or intellect). Both the Abulafian and Gikatillian traditions combine the philosophic, rabbinic, and kabbalistic ideas in attaching hypostatic notions, such as Metatron, shekhinah, and the Active Intellect, to merkavah

An Angelic Image of Torah

255

imagery. Like Abulafia, in order to explain the reality of devekut, Gikatilla associates the image of Torah with an angelic, hypostatic, and visualized mediator, which is further identified with philosophic, rabbinic, and kabbalistic concepts of the hypostatic notions that are part of merkavah imagery. As noted earlier, in Ginnat ʾEgoz, we can also see the Maimonidean and Abulafian influences, such as the use of the philosophical concepts (i.e., the Active Intellect), which are identified with the sefirotic entities, like shekhinah and ḥokhmah. Using linguistic techniques, in a manner that recalls Abulafia, Gikatilla identifies the various hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the Active Intellect, Metatron, and shekhinah, and reconfigures them against the backdrop of the merkavah imagery.213 The linguistic techniques also connect the merkavah imagery, such as angelic entities, to the divine names in the letters of the Torah.214 Gikatilla’s innovative approach in Ginnat ʾEgoz, under Abulafia’s philosophical influence, includes the use of linguistic techniques, such as letter combination, on the basis of Abulafia’s philosophical influences. Taken together, my analysis of the thought of Abulafia and Gikatilla corroborates that an angelic image of Torah appears in the letters of the divine names of the Torah, especially in the Tetragrammaton in relation to the merkavah imagery. We can also see that an angelic image of Torah appears as a visualized mediator, which fills a gap between God and human beings through the idea of devekut. This further substantiates that Maimonides, Abulafia, and Gikatilla’s early works presupposes an ontological gap between a transcendent God and human beings which necessitates the active operation of devekut. 213 Scholem, Major Trends, 80, 173; Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 106. Abulafia distinguishes between the logic of Aristotle and the inner logic of Kabbalah. 214 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 280–81.

Chapter 4

A God-Like Image of Torah in the Medieval Jewish Mystical Tradition 1

The Continuity of God-Like Images of Torah in the Sefirot

Now I will examine the interactions and continuities between the primitive forms of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah in the Second Temple period and their transitional or full-fledged forms in the late antique and medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. It is first beneficial to recall that the intertextual and theological relationships between the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, found in the Wisdom-centered tradition of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, showcase the God-like image of Torah. For instance, we have seen various examples of the God-like images of Torah in the activities and images of the personified Wisdom figures as a sage or master in the works of the Wisdom-centered tradition, including Proverbs, Sirach, Wisdom of Solomon, and the Qumran texts, as well as in the images and activities of Jesus as a sage or teacher possessing profound wisdom of the Torah in the Synoptic Gospels. It is notable that the hypostatic notions of Torah in the Wisdom-centered tradition functions as a non-visualized mediator, rather than as a visualized mediator, as is found in the Logos-centered tradition. Furthermore, as examined above, the angelic images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, Metatron and shekhinah, which are manifest in philosophically inclined sources, reemerge in the merkavah imagery, which conveys the God-like images of the hypostatic notions in the sefirotic system that was developed in Jewish mystical and kabbalistic traditions. Before diving into this investigation, it is crucial to note that there were profound interactions between rabbinic thought and mythic, gnostic, and heretical ideas, such as the idea of two powers in heaven, an idea that generated controversy in ancient Jewish mystical (wisdom) and rabbinic texts, as well as in early Jewish and Christian Gnostic texts.1 The doctrines about hypostatic mediators in the talmudic literature appear to be associated with the heretical ideas of two powers in heaven in the controversy between R. Akiva 1 As noted earlier, I do not reject the possibility of a relationship between Gnosticism and kabbalistic thought even though I do not entirely agree with Scholem’s approach.

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_007

A God-Like Image of Torah

257

and R. Ishmael, regarding the explanations of Gen 1:26–27, in early rabbinic literature, such as the Mekhilta (e.g., Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Pisḥa 13:9–11; 14:64–69). This controversial phenomenon also implies not only a profound interaction between rabbinic thought and the mythic, gnostic, and heretical ideas regarding the idea of two powers in heaven but also highlights the difference between them, which is grounded in the hermeneutical (literal, allegorical, and symbolic) approaches regarding the roles of angelic and hypostatic entities in the creation context. This examination also shows that the theological and ontological dualism of Gnosticism, which spread around the second century CE, appears to have interacted with Philo’s conception of the Logos and Jewish-Samaritan heresy as well as early Christian Gnostic traditions.2 It is notable that, as extra-rabbinic evidence, Philo’s use of the term ‘two gods’ shows a backdrop of the hypostatic ideas of the Logos for two powers in heaven, which appear in gnostic and rabbinic thought.3 Interestingly, in a manner similar to the Gnostic demiurge, Philo’s conception of the image of Adam conveys not only a demiurgical mediator, which is connected to the concept of ‘second god’ of the Logos, but also a hypostasis who contains a divine-like image of the primordial or heavenly Man as an anthropomorphic divinity (Somn I. xl, 234–237).4 As Altmann notes, the concept and divine-like images of the primordial Man specifically appears in connection to the symbolic images of the ‘primordial light’ and ‘water,’ taken from the creation context. These concepts and divine-like images are also alluded to in early and late midrashic sources and Gnostic sources.5 This shows that the interrelationships of the gnostic 2 Simon Magus in Irenaeus’ work (Adv. Haer. 23.1–24.7, in Dillon, Against the Heresies, 81–87) sees “angels and powers” as the demiurgical creators. In particular, the images of the angelic and demiurgical figures in the system of the Ophites appear as a hypostasized evil being, named Samael. See Hedrick, The Apocalypse of Adam, 19–23, 66. 3 Philo, Somn. I, xxxvii, 215–17, xxvi, 160–65, and xxxix, 227–29. 4 Leg. I. xii, 31; Opif. xxiii, 69. As William D. Davies notes, in contrast to Paul’s conception of the first Adam, Philo conceptualizes a dualistic image of Adam as earthly and heavenly Man (i.e., primordial Adam or Man as a hypostasis). Davis, Paul and Rabbinic Judaism, 45–49; Wilhelm Bousset, Hauptprobleme der Gnosis, Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973), 194–96; Carl H. Kraeling, Anthropos and Son of Man: A Study in the Religious Syncretism of the Hellenistic Orient (Piscataway: Gorgias Press. 2008), 158–60; Frederick H. Borsch, The Son of Man in Myth and History (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967), 75–89. 5 The image of the primordial light echoes the mythic descriptions of the primordial Adam in earlier midrashic sources (b. Ḥag. 12a; an anonymous Baraita Gen. Rab. iii, 6, xii, 6, xli, 3; Num. Rab. xiii, 5; Pesiq. Rab. xxxvi, 192 b; Lev. Rab. xx, 2. In midrashic thought, the primordial Man appears as a symbolic being, who possesses the primordial light, which reflects the motifs of gnostic mythology and cosmology, related to the exegesis of Tohu and Bohu and the creation of light (Gen 1:1–2), in Naassenic Gnosis, such as Philosophumena of Hippolytus and Pistis Sophia, which is a third or fourth-century Gnostic text. Antipope Hippolytus and Origen,

258

Chapter 4

and rabbinic cosmology and their mythic and mystic speculations implicitly appear throughout the ancient and late antique rabbinic and gnostic thought as well as early Christian thought.6 Specifically, as Fossum notes, the concept of the primordial or heavenly Man who possesses the Divine Name (= the Tetragrammaton), i.e., who is hypostatized and personified in the Divine Name by his demiurgical activities, appears in Samaritan texts, and early Jewish and Christian Gnostic texts.7 As is well known, the early Rabbis, in keeping with a Origenis Philosophumena Sive Omnium Haeresium Refutatio, ed. Emmanuel Miller, Oxonii: Typographeo Academico, 1851) 123–24. 6 As Altmann notes, the gnostic influences on rabbinic cosmology appear in early Christian sources and late rabbinic and kabbalistic sources, such as Zohar. These sources appear to combine the mythical and mythological aspects of Hellenistic philosophy and gnostic myths. Altmann, “Gnostic Themes in Rabbinic Cosmology” in Essays in Honour of Joseph H. Hertz, ed. Isidore Epstein, Ephraim Levine, and Cecil Roth (London: Goldston, 1942), 19–32. 7 Due to the monotheistic ethos of rabbinic thought, there are allusions to an angelic image of the primordial or First Man, as opposed to a demiurgical image, in some midrashic sources, such as Pesiq. Rab. xxxvi, 4 (192a), as well as some Gnostic sources, such as in Poimandres in the Corpus Hermeticum. However, the primordial Man figure convey both an angelic image and a divine-like image in some early midrashic sources (Mek. d’R. Ishmael to Ex 14:29; Gen. Rab. 8:9; 21:5) and Gnostic sources. The heavenly Man appears to be associated with various hypostatized notions such as Sophia (Wisdom), the Glory, the Spirit as well as Christ in the Enochic, Apocalyptic, and Christian Gnostic sources. See Fossum, 81, 248–57, idem, “Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism,” Vigiliae Christianae 37.3 (1983): 260–87. Specifically, in Poimandres (libellvs i), the concept of Anthropos, primal Man, appear not only as a divine-like image of God the Father but also as an image of demiurgical mediator, grounded in gendered symbolism. See Trismegistus Hermes, Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings which contain religious or philosophic teachings ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus, ed. Walter Scott (Boulder, CO: Hermes House, 1982), 114–25. Interestingly, in the thought of the Ophites, a gendered symbolism appears in a divine union between the divine-like and masculine images of the Frist Man as the Father and the Second Man as his Son, and the divine-like and feminine images of the Spirit and Light as the First Woman and Mother. See Adv. Haer. 30.1–7 and the translation in Dillon, Against the Heresies, 95–98. In addition, the role and image of primordial Man appears as a salvific and divine-like image, despite its dependence upon God. See Jonathan Peste, The Poimandres Group in Corpus Hermeticum: Myth, Mysticism, and Gnosis in Late Antiquity (Göteborg: Dept. of Religious Studies, University of Göteborg, 2002), 113–16; Richard Reitzenstein, and Trismegistus Hermes, Poimandres: Studien Zur Griechisch-Ägyptischen Und Frühchristlichen Literatur (Leipzig: Teubner, 1904), 81–83, 328–38. Interestingly, under the gnostic influence, some rabbinic material conceives of Adam as a divine being (Gen. Rab. xxi, 5). The gnostic motif of the adoration of primordial Man, as a divine-like being, by the angels can be gleaned from late rabbinic (aggadic-midrashic) literature, such as Pirke d’R. Eliezer ch. 11 (the works of creation on the sixth day), 74–83, and in the Mandean system in the Ginza Rabba, as well as in the Ophite gnosis in Adv. Haer. 30.1–15. See Sabah Aldihisi, “The Story of Creation in the Mandaean Holy Book in the Ginza Rba” (PhD diss., University College London, 2008), 93–98, 137–41; Altmann, “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends,” JQR 35.4 (1945): 371–91.

A God-Like Image of Torah

259

monotheistic attitude, opposed these mythic, gnostic, and heretical ideas, as can be seen in the arguments in early rabbinic and midrashic literature, that identify the Tetragrammaton with the merciful attribute of divine providence but not with the demiurgical mediators.8 The concept and images of the heavenly Man or primordial Adam in the talmudic and targumic literature (e.g., b. Sanh. 38b, 65b; Tg. Onq. to Gen 2:7; 3:5) appear as part of a wider phenomenon of ancient Jewish esotericism in the so-called golem legend, reflecting a divine-like image of the Divine Name in the creation process, which later mainly appears in early kabbalistic literature.9 In addition, the concept of this demiurgical figure appears to further emerge into a divine-like image when it is combined with the images of various hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah, Metatron, and merkavah found in

8 Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 35–83; Mek. d’R. Ishmael, Beshallaḥ 12:73; m. Meg. 4:9; y. Meg. 4:10 (75c); b. Meg. 25a; b. Ber. 33b. These midrashic prohibitions are against the heretical ideas of two powers in heaven and unorthodox prayers. Sifre to Deuteronomy 329. I. 2: A–B: (Dt 32:39) “One who says there are two authorities in heaven” … “and beside me there is no god” (Isa 44:6), Neusner, 2:374; Sifre Zutta to Numbers, Shelah XV. 30. I. 1:C “and that person” – This is one who says, “there are two dominions in heaven.” Neusner, Sifre Zutta to Numbers, 154. In early Christian Gnostic sources, such as The Hypostasis of the Archons (II. 4), which appears in Nag Hammadi Codex II, various mythologized and hypostatic mediators, such as Sophia and Samael, which are separate from angelic beings, appear as symbolic entities for the good and evil. As Bullard notes, the gnostic features in this book, which are similar to those of the Ophite groups, reflect a transitional period from a purely mythological sense to a philosophical manner. This provides a critical insight and understanding for reconstructing the development and interaction between the gnostic, Jewish mystical, and kabbalistic thought. See Roger A. Bullard, The Hypostasis of the Archons: The Coptic Text with Translation and Commentary (1970; repr., Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), 19–116; Kurt Rudolph, “Die Gnosis: Texte Und Übersetzungen,” Theologische Rundschau 55.2 (1990): 113–52. This also shows that unlike Gnosticism, which is based on an ontological and metaphysical dualism, rabbinism understands the different aspects of divine activities by identifying the demiurgical agent with God. The idea of resisting the gnostic and mythological elements also appear in the Samaritan texts, such as the Malef and Memar Marqah, which date around the second-fourth centuries CE. See Samaritans (Organization) and Arthur E. Cowley, The Samaritan Liturgy (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909), 29–55; Memar Marqah IV. 2, pp. 86–87; IV. 7, pp. 96–98: “He created without a helper He made without an associate.” 9 Segal, Two Powers in Heaven, 111–41; Altmann, “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends.” JQR 35 (1944–1945): 371–91. This shows that the so-called golem legend, which is profoundly related to the concept of the heavenly Man as a hypostatic mediator, appears to convey a God-like image indistinguishable from God Himself through the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies. Despite the lack of evidence, it is conceivable that the notion of the golem, in gnostic and rabbinic thought, might have been developed by means of Sefer Yetsirah (i.e., the Book of Creation) into a cycle of golem legends in the magical and kabbalistic thought.

260

Chapter 4

the talmudic and midrashic literature.10 The merkavah imagery specifically appears to be associated with the divine-like images of the Tetragrammaton (Ex 23:20; b. Ḥag. 15a; Sanh. 38b:19) against the backdrop of the anthropomorphized hypostatic figures, such as Metatron, along with the Divine Throne texts (Ex 24:10–11; Dan 7:9–10; Ezek 1:26–28).11 As Alexander notes, regarding the similarities between Gnosticism, Merkavah Mysticism, and rabbinism, it is necessary to examine in detail their profound interactions against the backdrop of the conditions intertwined with the magical, apocalyptic, and socio-historical elements, as well as similar motifs and terminologies, which are manifest in the Gnostic, Merkavah, and rabbinic sources.12 In this context, Schäfer and Scholem emphasize that the dialectical interface between mythical Hebraism and philosophic Hellenism, which reflects the interactions between various hypostatic notions, such as Wisdom and Logos, explicitly reappears in the features of shekhinah in late antique Jewish mystical texts, the Bahir, and the early kabbalistic works.13 Specifically, the mythopoetic image of shekhinah, against the backdrop of the angelic and divine-like 10

Specifically, the images of merkavah, along with the images of the Throne, appear respectively as an angelic and divine-like image, linked to the concept and images of Torah, in accordance with the different strata and approaches of mishnaic and talmudic sources, such as m. Ḥag. 2:1; b. Ḥag. 2a and b; y. Ḥag. 77a–d; b. Ḥag. 11b–16a, and midrashic Merkavah texts. However, as David J. Halperin (183–85) notes, the rabbinic sources on merkavah do not provide explicit evidence for the existence of the merkavah mysticism, which directly connects the rabbinic merkavah and the Hekhalot texts. See Halperin, The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature (New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980), 1–185. See also the translation in Visotzky, trans., The Midrash on Proverbs, 57–58, n. 39; Scholem, Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 71. 11 In the talmudic and midrashic literature, the visions of the Divine Throne and Divine Chariot (merkavah) can be achieved by studying the Torah (cf. b. Ḥag. 3b; y. Ḥag. 77a-d; b. Šabb. 80b). 12 Philip S. Alexander, “Comparing Merkavah Mysticism and Gnosticism: An Essay in Method,” JJS 35.1 (1984): 1–18. It is also notable that the Merkavah Mysticism conveys the intertwined nexuses between the apocalyptic and mythic (anthropomorphic) elements, which are manifest throughout early Christianity and first-century Palestinian Judaism, and Rabbinism, as well as Gnosticism. This also substantiates that the close similarities between Merkavah mysticism and Gnosticism are found in the Jewish and Christian Gnostic sources, such as the Hypostasis of the Archons (II. 4), On the Origin of the World, and the teachings of the Ophites in Origen’s Contra Celsum VI. 24–38. See translation in James M. Robinson, and Richard Smith, The Nag Hammadi Library in English, 3rd rev. ed. (San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), 70–89; Fossum, “Jewish-Christian Christology,” 260–87. 13 Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 222. As Wolfson, in Hebraic and Hellenistic Conceptions, 155, notes, my concern is not to trace the historical origins of the concepts of Wisdom and Logos but to examine their phenomenological features throughout the history of ideas.

A God-Like Image of Torah

261

images of Wisdom and Logos in the Bahir, appear to function in a literary and theological context, which combines mythic and anthropomorphic strategies manifest in the Jewish Wisdom and Gnostic traditions, and in the Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies. More importantly, Philo’s conception of the Logos and Wisdom appears to be gradually assimilated with the rabbinic doctrine of the shekhinah as it apparently appears throughout late antique Jewish mystical texts.14 Specifically, the images of Metatron, associated with the shekhinah, appear to be involved with an anthropomorphic and mythic strategy, which expresses the divine presence throughout the rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical (Enochic, Hekhalot, and Hasidei Ashkenazi) literature. It is notable that the images of Sar Torah in the Enochic and Hekhalot literature, which convey an angelic image of Torah identical to Metatron as “a Second Divine Manifestation,” also illuminate a God-like image of Torah in which the roles and functions of Sar Torah reveal the secrets of the Torah as in the activities and images of transcendent and personified Wisdom.15 Indeed, the images of Sar Torah are expressed by the anthropomorphic images of Metatron as a “father” or “sage” who instructs children in the wisdom of Torah, as attested to in the talmudic and rabbinic literature (e.g., b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b, Num. Rab. xii, 15) and in 3 Enoch (e.g., 3 En. xlviii, C:12).16 The anthropomorphic “father” or “sage” images are reminiscent of the God-like images of personified Wisdom and Jesus in the Gospels, which appear as a God-like image of Torah.17 Hugo Odeberg also notes that the images of Metatron (and shekhinah) in the Hekhalot text known as 3 Enoch, are characterized by both an angelic image of Metatron as “Youth” (naʿar) and a God-like image as a “lesser YHWH,” bearing the Divine Name in the Enochic and Hekhalotic literature.18 Martin Cohen also explains 14 Wolfson, Philo, 1:200–94. 15 Scholem, Majors Trends in Jewish Mysticism, 77–78; Schäfer, Synopse,  §§ 281–294; 3 En. iii–xvi, and xlviii. Metatron in 3 Enoch functions not only as an angelic intermediary of “the Prince of the Presence,” but also as a second manifestation of the Deity. Cf. Schäfer, Synopse, §§ 206–213. This implies that the image of Sar Torah as Metatron is related to the images of personified Wisdom. 16 Alexander, “From Son of Adam to a Second God,” 105. Metatron appears in a sage-like image in rabbinic sources, including in passages from b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b, Num. R. xii. 15, and elsewhere, whereas in the Enoch-Metatron material, in Synopse §78–80 (3 En. xlviii. D:6–10), we find an angelic image of Metatron, as well as Sar Torah, as we also find in various other Hekhalot writings, including Merkavah Rabbah and Maʿaseh Merkavah. 17 See b. ʿAbod. Zar. 3b; Num. R. xii. 15; 3 En. xlviii, C:12. 18 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, PART II, 6–7. In 3 En. iii, we read, “In that hour, I asked Metatron, the angel, the Prince of the Presence: ‘What is thy name?’ He answered me: ‘I have seventy names, corresponding to the seventy tongues of the world and all of them are based upon the name Metatron, angel of the Presence; but my King calls me Youth.’” In 3 En. (e.g.,

262

Chapter 4

that in one section of the Shiur Qomah – a text closely related to Hekhalot literature – R. Ishmael, who plays a key role in the narration of the Hekhalot Rabbati, recounts Metatron’s explanation of the measurements of the body of God.19 These descriptions of Metatron imply that, in addition to an angelic image of Metatron, the God-like image of Metatron as a divine agent, who rules and supervises all the angels as ‫( כלים‬kelim: hayyot, ofanim, kerubim, serafim), appears in the context of the merkavah imagery. Furthermore, the God-like image of Metatron is primarily based upon Metatron’s relationship with the Tetragrammaton, insofar as Metatron is referred to as “lesser YHWH,” bearing the Divine Name, and the verse “My Name is in Him” (Ex 23:21) is applied to him.20 In all, the images of both Metatron and shekhinah similarly convey not only an angelic image of Torah, as depicted in the merkavah imagery, but also a God-like image of Torah which is symbolized as a dwelling place for the hidden presence of God and is intertwined and entrenched in the divine names related to the Torah. It is notable that the God-like image of Metatron can be observed in the activities and images of shekhinah as presented in Hekhalot literature. The dualistic conception of the angelic and God-like images of Sar Torah and Metatron also reemerges in the dualistic conception of the angelic and God-like images of shekhinah. As Odeberg notes, the images of shekhinah as part of the dualistic conception of the throne of glory in the merkavah visions is connected to the God-like image of shekhinah in the Enochic and Hakhalot literature.21 As examined earlier, in the mishnaic and talmudic literature, the shekhinah appears as a direct expression of God Himself, insofar as God is present in a specific place or event. This shows that the image of shekhinah is

v–vii; xi–xii; xviii; xix–xxvi; xlviii), the Divine Name of “the lesser YHWH” (Ex 23:21) is given to Metatron. This substantiates a God-like image of Metatron. 19 Martin S. Cohen, The Shiur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism (Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983), 197–214. 20 See 3 En. v–vii; xi–xii, xviii; xix–xxvi; xlviii. These passages explain “the seventy names of the Most High” and the Divine Name of “the lesser YHWH.” This shows that the divine names are primarily based upon the Tetragrammaton, in relation to the verse “My Name is in Him” (Ex 23:21). 21 Odeberg, 3 Enoch, PART II, 76–89. In 3 Enoch, we can see the detailed descriptions of the merkavah: the ascent and descent of the angels between the distance of “12 myriads of parasangs” (3 En. xxii); the winds blowing under the wings of the kerubim” (3 En. xxiii); “the different chariots of the Holy One, blessed be He” (3 En. xxv and xxiv), ofannim (3 En. xxv). It is notable that the images of Metatron appear as an angelic and anthropomorphic image in the talmudic literature, such as b. Ḥag. 15a; b. Sanh. 38b, which reflect a later stage of development than the images of Metatron in 3 Enoch.

A God-Like Image of Torah

263

symbolically depicted as God-like in mythic and anthropomorphic imageries.22 As it also does in the talmudic, midrashic, and Hekhalot literature, in the literature of Hasidei Ashkenaz, we can also find a God-like image of shekhinah in the descriptions of an inner glory (kavod penimi) and invisible kavod (i.e., shekhinah), which is both a symbolic manifestation of His presence in the world, and a God-like image identified with His holiness and God Himself.23 This shows that in contrast to the angelic image of shekhinah as a created and visible glory, which appears on the throne of the merkavah, the image of the shekhinah takes on God-like characteristics in the image of an invisible glory emanated from God.24 The image of shekhinah as God-like is invisible, only accessible in this world through symbolism rather than directly, and not more fully accessible until the eschatological period. In all, this examination substantiates that the God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron and shekhinah, are dynamically formulated by a hermeneutic strategy of employing mythic and anthropomorphic imagery to express the divine presence, which is manifest throughout rabbinic and late antique and medieval Jewish mystical (Enochic, Hekhalot, and Hasidei Ashkenazi) literature. It also shows that the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron and shekhinah, are grounded in the combination of the rabbinic, philosophical, and Jewish mystical concepts of Torah and theological concepts of God, as examined earlier. This demonstrates that the images of Metatron and shekhinah convey both an angelic image and a God-like image of Torah as in the dualistic conception of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in late rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical literature. The previous examination also shows that the God-like image of Wisdomcentered hypostatic notions appears to be directed by the mythopoetic, symbolic, anthropomorphic strategies to the mainly human (feminine)-like images, whereas the angelic image of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah 22 23

24

Cohen, The Shiur Qomah: Texts and Recensions (Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983), 51–76, 134–47. Scholem, Major Trends, 105–16. Scholem also discusses the dualistic conception of kavod as “holiness” and “greatness” in Hasidei Ashkenazi literature. The “holiness” alludes to the formless glory (kavod) of the divine attributes, while the “greatness” indicates the kingdom (malkhut) ministered by the angelic beings (cherub) on the throne of the merkavah imagery. Cf. Odeberg, 3 Enoch, xlviii, 174; Introduction, 189. I will discuss later in detail the development of these features and images of shekhinah and Metatron in merkavah mysticism as they permeated into the Abulafian and Gikatillian traditions in connection with the other hypostatic notions. In the dual conception of the images of Metatron, the God-like image of Metatron also appears as a hidden mediator who bridges the gap between God and human beings.

264

Chapter 4

appears to be directed by the literary and allegorical strategies to the mainly human (masculine)-like images of Torah. However, it shows no clear-cut distinction between the divine-like (hypostatic) Wisdom and the angelic (demiurgical) Logos. In the context of creation, the features of Wisdom in a female form in Prov 8, Sir 24 are interconnected with the angelic and divine-like images in accordance with a theological distance from God. Specifically, in manner similar to a masculine role of the son-like and father-like images of Wisdom (Leg. I. xviii, 64) in a manner similar to the image of the Logos in Philonic thought, the daughter-like and mother-like images simultaneously appear in the images of Wisdom (Fug. ix, 51–52).25 This shows a gender combination between a feminine divine hypostasis of Wisdom and masculine demiurgical or angelic mediator of the Logos, while bridging the transcendent and the immanent through the philosophic allegory and mythopoetic symbolism. As noted earlier, the dynamic interactions of the gendered images of the hypostatic notions, which I hope to further offer in a separate study, i.e., the feminine images of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom and shekhinah, and the masculine images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos, Johannine Logos, also appears in the images of Jesus as a focal point, which creates the dynamic images of Torah through the profound interactions between the ancient and late antique Jewish and Christian traditions. Furthermore, it is necessary to note that some traits of ancient and late antique Jewish and Christian traditions of Wisdom and Logos which mainly appear in the dynamic gendered images of shekhinah in the Bahir, which are profoundly related to the images of Torah.26 As Schäfer notes, the gendered symbolism, which reflects the feminine and masculine dimensions of God, after Philo’s conception of Wisdom and Logos, intensely reappear in the Bahir, which reflect critical features of the sefirot, intertwined with gendered motifs manifest in the first kabbalistic works, and thereby are 25 Wolfson, Hebraic and Hellenistic Conceptions, 168. Laporte, Philo in the Tradition of Biblical Wisdom, 118; Jean Laporte, and Robert L. Wilken, “Philo in the tradition of biblical wisdom literature,” Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity (1975): 118–19. It shows that Philo’s description of Wisdom shows a combination of a feminine and masculine feature, which synthesizes a philosophical tradition and Jewish mystical and esoteric tradition. It also alludes to the fact that Philo’s conception of Logos appears competitive with the established position of Jewish Wisdom. 26 The gendered images of mother, spouse, and daughter of God, as well as a father-like image, which simultaneously appear in Philo’s conception of Wisdom, dynamically appear in a form of the Jewish mythologoumena, which reflects the Jewish wisdom and esoteric traditions as well as early Jewish and Christian gnostic traditions in the Bahir. In secs. 97–99 (in The Book Bahir, ed. Abrams), the shekhinah is explicitly identified with the tenth sefirah and the Oral Torah.

A God-Like Image of Torah

265

answerable to the questions of the origin of the kabbalah.27 It is notable that the dynamic interactions between the gendered images of Wisdom and Logos not only appear within the framework of Jewish Christianity and Christology but also reappear in the profound interactions between the images of various hypostatic notions, such as shekhinah, manifest in the early and late antique Jewish and Christian gnostic, rabbinic and Jewish esoteric traditions.28 Against this backdrop, I will delve into how these hypostatic notions were developed, transformed, and formulated into the God like image of Torah as they were conceptually joined with the sefirotic system throughout thirteenthcentury kabbalah. I will also try to prove the continuities, interactions, and relationships of the primitive forms of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in the Second Temple period with their transitional or full-fledged forms, such as the Metatron and the Active Intellect, and shekhinah and sefirot in the late antique and medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. As Joseph Dan notes, it is evident that the sefirotic system is related to the hypostatic notions such as Metatron and shekhinah in early Jewish mystical texts (e.g., merkavah mysticism in the talmudic and Hekhalot literature, as well as the Bahir)  – that is, to the history of ancient Jewish mysticism  – despite the ambiguousness of the precise historical relationships.29 Wolfson demonstrates that the distinction between God and the shekhinah and Metatron as angelic mediators, which is found in the talmudic and late antique Jewish 27

28

29

Schäfer, Mirror of His Beauty, 76. Scholem tried to discover the bahiric elements (i.e., gendered images of shekhinah and the sefirot) in the works of early kabbalistic circles. However, the dynamic images of the shekhinah as God’s wife, sister, daughter, and mother in the Bahir appear to be closer to those in the Philonic and early Jewish and Christian gnostic traditions. Ibid., 147–72. Interestingly, Hefzibah, the Jewish mother of the Jewish messiah in Zerubbavel Apocalypse appears to be paralleled to Mary, the Christian mother of the Christian Messiah in the works of the Church Fathers. The concepts of the male Logos and female Wisdom appear to be interactively intertwined with the gendered figures, such as Jesus as the Son of God in a masculine form, and Mary as the mother of Incarnate Jesus in a feminine form in early Christian traditions. Above all, as seen earlier, in Philonic thought, the gendered dynamics between Wisdom, as a female form, and Logos, as a male form, implicitly appear to be related to the dualistic images of Jesus, which convey both personified Wisdom, in a female form, and Logos, in a male form, in the Gospels. I hope to further offer in a separate study the development and profound interactions between the gnostic, mythic, and gendered images of various hypostatic notions dynamically entwined in a masculine and feminine form, such as Logos, Wisdom, and shekhinah in ancient and late antique Jewish thought (especially bahiric thought), and Jesus and Mary as historical figures hypostatized in early and byzantine Christianity. Joseph Dan, “Three phases of the History of the Sefer Yezira,” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 21 (1994): 7–29.

266

Chapter 4

mystical literature, is gradually blurred in the literature of Hasidei Ashkenaz.30 He also shows that, in Nahmanides’ system, there is a continuity between God and angelic beings in a sense of the divine immanence that blurs the distinction between the hypostatic notions of Torah and God.31 This implies that the hypostatic notions of Torah eventually appear to be symbolically identified and absorbed within the sefirotic system in the kabbalistic texts. It is also notable that the dualistic conception of the images of shekhinah, as reflected in Metatron, appears to be dynamically developed into the images of the ten hypostatic powers known as sefirot in the early and thirteenth-century kabbalistic traditions. It is also notable that, as Shlomo Pines explains, Nahmanides views the shekhinah as not separate from God, as opposed to the conception of shekhinah as a created being, which is found in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho, Saadia’s theology, and Maimonides’ thought.32 Nahmanides’s assertion, as Scholem and Mopsik explained, is related to the interpretation of the rabbinic dictum of “the cutting of the shoots.” This rabbinic dictum means an isolation of the idea of Logos or Metatron as a hypostasis, or a disconnection of the Logos named Metatron from God since this idea is a transgression of the commandments.33 This shows that the controversial issues regarding the understanding of the sefirot as hypostatic entities and the inclusion or exclusion of the hypostatic notions of Torah within the Godhead are explicitly related to the conceptualization of the sefirot in the early kabbalistic traditions. In order to understand the formative development of the sefirot in relation to various hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron, shekhinah, and ḥokhmah, which were manifest from Late Antiquity through the Middle Ages, it is first necessary to investigate Sefer Yetsirah (i.e., the Book of Creation) and Sefer ha-Bahir. Sefer Yetsirah, which deals with the subjects of cosmology and cosmogony, particularly contains the concept of the sefirot (as ten

30 E. Wolfson, “Metatron and Shiʿur Qomah in the Writings of Haside Ashkenaz,” in Mysticism, Magic and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism, ed. Karl E. Grözinger and Joseph Dan (Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012), 60–92. 31 E. Wolfson, “The Secret of the Garment in Nahmanides,” Daʿat 24 (1990): xxv–xlix. 32 Pines, “God, the Divine Glory and the Angels according to a 2nd Century Theology,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought, 6:3–4 (1987): 1–14 (Hebrew). Above, we have examined the identification between the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah as angelic mediators, e.g., shekhinah (or divine glory), and the Word of God (or the Logos or memra), all terms used to describe the presence of God in the world. This identification is found, for instance in Justin Martyr’s Dialogue with Trypho. 33 Scholem, Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition, 2nd ed. (New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965), 16.

A God-Like Image of Torah

267

mathematical principles) through which God formed the universe.34 This idea of the sefirot also concerns the inner dynamics of the divine and the symbolic contemplation of the divine nature and attributes.35 In kabbalistic literature, God as Infinite is referred to as Ein Sof prior to the emanation of the ten sefirot. On the one hand, the sefirotic system also is depicted in mythic and anthropomorphic terms, often drawn from biblical and rabbinic literature. On the other hand, they express metaphysical, mathematical, and linguistic components and their permutations, in terms taken from philosophical sources. This allows the sefirot to allude to the totality of the hypostatic notions of Torah, insofar as they holistically combine the biblical, philosophical, rabbinic, and mystical concepts of Torah. The first sefirah, keter is identified with the all-transcending glory or divine will (i.e., inner, or invisible kavod) of God. This is understood by kabbalists as the totality of the Written and Oral Torahs. The second sefirah, ḥokhmah (i.e., Wisdom), is identified with preexistent Torah. The third sefirah, binah (i.e., Logos) is identified as the vessel in which God shaped all the letters of the Torah, and the tenth sefirah, shekhinah, alludes to not only the created and visible glory but also the divine presence. This shows that the earlier hypostatic notions of Torah, such as shekhinah and Metatron in relation 34

35

It is evident that the concept of the sefirot in Sefer Yetsirah is fundamentally related to the core ideas regarding the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah, which mainly originated from the biblical, rabbinic and Second Temple and late antique Jewish mystical sources. Steven Wasserstrom argues that the concept of the sefirot was greatly influenced by interactions with Greek, Gnostic, and Islamic mystical traditions in the eighth and ninth centuries. In his view, it also shows the influences of Greek esoteric cosmological ideas on its origin and formative process of the Sefer Yetsirah. See Wasserstrom, “Sefer Yesira and Early Islam: A Reappraisal,” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3.1 (1994):1–30. By contrast, Peter Hayman detects the influence of Valentinian Gnosticism, Pseudo-Clementine, and similar writings. See Adv. Haer. 11.1–11.5 and the translation in Dillon, Against the Heresies, 23–53. Accordingly, he sees a late-second or early-third-century Syrian origin of Sefer Yetsirah. See Hayman, “The Temple at the Center of the Universe: Some Observations on Sefer Yetsirah,” Journal of Jewish Studies (1984): 176–82. Most recently, Tzahi Weiss has argued that Sefer Yetsirah, in contrast to the influences of Greek esoteric ideas and Gnostic or Islamic traditions, is “a rare surviving Jewish treatise written and edited around the seventh century by Jews who were familiar with Syriac Christianity and were far from the main circles of rabbinic learning” (2). See Weiss, Sefer Yetsirah and Its Contexts: Other Jewish Voices (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018), 2–5. Shlomo Pines, “Points of Similarity between the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Sefirot in the Sefer Yezira and a Text of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: The Implications of This Resemblance,” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 7.3 (1989): 66–74. Saadia Gaon wrote commentaries on the book. Kabbalists took the text as foundational, adopting the term sefirah and changing its meaning to refer to the attributes of God.

268

Chapter 4

to merkavah imagery in the Second Temple, rabbinic, and late antique Jewish mystical literature, as well as the literature of Hasdei Ashkenazi literature, were developed into the full-fledged forms and theosophic ideas of the sefirotic system of the early and thirteenth-century kabbalah. In all, this substantiates that the primitive forms of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods were dynamically developed, through the philosophical and theological interactions between the biblical, philosophical, rabbinic, and Jewish mystical concepts of Torah into the sefirotic system as an entire matrix of the full-fledge forms of the hypostatic notions of Torah in the Middle Ages. It is also conceivable that the characteristics of the innovative rabbinic approaches (i.e., literary, exegetical, and rhetorical) which show Hellenistic influences, had a significant impact on the dynamic change and development of the concepts and images of Torah, and on the hypostatic notions of Torah, which were intertextually and theologically interconnected during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. In this context, I will further elucidate how the various concepts and images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, which were dynamically developed during the Second Temple and later rabbinic periods, contributed to the emergence and development of kabbalah, which flourished in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries in Provence and Spain. I will delve into the bahiric and early kabbalistic understanding of the sefirot in relation to the concepts of God and the images Torah. I will also eludicate how the sefirotic system is related to the conceptions of the divine unity and divine essence and thereby how these formulate a God-like image of Torah. It is first notable that Scholem notes that the kabbalistic approaches to the concepts of God are distinctive from the philosophical approaches. It is evident that the concept of the divine unity defined as absence of composition, based on the Neoplatonic system, was eventually developed into apophatic theology, which was the core of Maimonidean thought.36 By contrast, kabbalah, which contains a mythic and anthropomorphic depiction God, appears to be different from the Neoplatonic conception of God. In order to explain the difference between the philosophic and mythic conceptions of God, Scholem points out, kabbalistic symbolism is incompatible with philosophical allegory on the basis of the antinomy between myth 36

Plotinus shows that the One is simple, independent, self-existent, free of composition, and conceptually unknowable: “But if this product is all things, that Principle is beyond all things: therefore ‘beyond being’; and if the product is all things but the One is before all things and not on an equality with all things, in this way too it must be ‘beyond being.’ That is, also beyond Intellect; there is, then, something beyond Intellect.” See Plotinus, Enneads, trans. A. H. Armstrong, LCL 440–445 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015). Cf. Enneads V. 4.1–2, pp. 1–45.

A God-Like Image of Torah

269

and philosophy.37 This means that philosophical allegory has “its own meaningful context” at first, but “its own meaning” is lost and becomes a vehicle for an other something.38 By contrast, the symbolism alludes to the immediacy and vitality, which intuitively projects a “momentary totality” of an inexpressible something.39 As Ernst Cassirer describes, the discursive nature of philosophic thought that values a philosophic system of meanings and relationships is different from the intuitive nature of symbolic thought that values instinctual implications in the mystical experience.40 In this sense, philosophical allegory is linear, logical, abstract, and discursive, while kabbalistic symbolism is circular, immediate, concrete, and intuitive. In Philo’s idea of unio mystica, symbolism conveys an “intuitive illumination” of thought like a “beam of light” that arises from “existence and cognition,” which abruptly provokes and penetrates something.41 As Scholem and Wolfson discussed it distinguishes the concept of the purity of God on the basis of philosophical allegory, which highlights divine simplicity and transcendence, from the mythic concept of God on the basis of kabbalistic symbolism.42 The kabbalistic concept is nourished by a dynamic conception of “living God”: revealed (known) and concealed (unknown), which is described using a mythic discourse.43 In other words, for the kabbalists, the living God is not only a purer theological concept, one cannot be negated by apophatic theology, but also a dynamic entity, which can be expressed by mythic and kabbalistic symbolism that creates various concepts of God and the images of Torah. Liebes, in a manner different from Scholem’s approach, entrenched as it is in the contrast between and the mythic aspect of kabbalah and philosophy, tries to discover the significance of a mythic thinking, which was already indigenous and inherent in the history of Jewish mystical tradition.44 Liebes thus considers the continuity between an ancient Jewish and rabbinic myth and the kabbalistic myth by examining a mythic “continuum extending from the biblical to the kabbalistic conception 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44

Scholem, Major Trends, 10–14, 25–28. Ibid., 26. Ibid., 27; Friedrich Creuzer, Symbolik Und Mythologie Der Alten Völker, Besonders Der Griechen: In Vorträgen Und Entwürfen, 2nd ed. Franz J. Mone (Leipzig: Heyer Und Leske, 1816), Part I. 70. Ernst Cassirer, The Myth of the State (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967), 25–37. Scholem, Major Trends, 27. Ibid., 10–14. Ibid.; E. Wolfson, Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995), 12. Liebes, “De Natura Dei: On the Development of the Jewish Myth,” in Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism, trans. Batya Stein (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993), 2–3.

270

Chapter 4

of divinity.”45 Wolfson also understands the mythic aspects of the kabbalistic sources as a continuous culmination of ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic traditions, while nevertheless comparing them to their philosophical themes in the Maimonidean thought.46 It is crucial to note that as Frank Talmage notes, there are profound interactions between the allegorical and symbolic interpretations of aggadic sources in ancient and late antique rabbinic traditions.47 Talmage discusses the intertwined features of remez (philosophical allegory) and sod (kabbalistic symbolism) in rabbinic literature.48 As Scholem notes, the medieval kabbalists regarded rabbinic midrash as repositories of mystical traditions, and specifically, like Maimonides, interpreted the esoteric subjects of aggadot regarding maʿaseh bereshit and maʿaseh merkavah.49 Like Maimonides, they appear to understand that the linguistic techniques, which are based on 45 Ibid., 2. 46 E. Wolfson, “Hebraic and Hellenic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir,” Poetics Today (1998): 147–76, 170–71. Wolfson notes that in a manner similar to the Bahir, Judah Halevi, who was a medieval Jewish philosopher and a great Hebrew poet, values the superiority of a symbolic and mythopoetic (or Hebraic) approach to the biblical and rabbinic (i.e., aggadic) sources over the allegoresis. On the basis of the distinction between philosophical allegory and kabbalistic myth, Liebes clarifies the term and definition of “mythic” language as “a direct relationship to the divine,” which “characterizes primitive religions, including the ancient Greeks” (213). He emphasizes that unlike the conventional conception of a symbolic language by scholars of Jewish mysticism, a “mythic” language is “available on the same plane of awareness and meaning as are all other observable phenomena” (213). See Liebes, “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbalah,” in Essential Papers on Kabbalah, ed. Find Lawrence (New York University Press, 1995), 212–42. 47 Frank E. Talmage, “Apples of Gold: The Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaism,” Jewish Spirituality 1 (1986): 314–21. 48 Ibid. Difficult scriptural passages, such as those contain anthropomorphic or anthropopathic descriptions of God, are taken as allegories and metaphors in rabbinic literature. Even if the aggadic allegoresis does not explicitly appear in rabbinic midrash, it implicitly can be gleaned from the allegorical interpretations of the aggadic sources. For instance, Halevi allegorically interprets the aggadic passages from “b. Pesaḥ. 54b and b. Ned. 39b” (67): “‘Seven things were created prior to the world: Paradise, the Torah, the Just, Israel, the Throne of Glory, Jerusalem, and the Messiah, the son of David.’ This is similar to the sayings of some philosophers: ‘The primary thought includes the final deed.’ It was the object of divine wisdom in the creation of the world to create the Torah, which was the essence of wisdom, and whose bearers are the just, among whom stands the throne of glory and the truly righteous, who are the most select, viz. Israel, and the proper place for them was Jerusalem, and only the best of men, viz. the Messiah, son of David, could be associated with them, and they all entered Paradise. Figuratively speaking, one must assume that they were created prior to the world.” (Kuzari III. 73.) See the translations in Hartwig Hirschfeld (trans.), The Kuzari, Kuzari III. 73, p. 96. 49 Scholem, Major Trends, 32; Pines, Guide I. Introduction to Part I, 6.

A God-Like Image of Torah

271

allegory and symbolism, can protect the esoteric meanings in the Torah.50 In particular, they discussed, in accordance with the two intents of Proverbs, the two levels of wisdom: an exoteric level, which conveys practical wisdom, and an esoteric (philosophical or symbolical) level, which derived from an inner or hidden wisdom, i.e., personified Wisdom as a hypostatic notion, which is identified with primordial Torah.51 As Dauber notes, some medieval kabbalists, such as R. Ezra and Azriel of Gerona, regardless of their kabbalistic beliefs, considered the allegorical (i.e., esoteric) interpretations of aggadot as the method legitimatizing a literary authority for the antiquity of the kabbalah.52 By contrast, some kabbalists, such as Nahmanides, criticized their allegoresis of the aggadot in a philosophical ethos. In principle, the esoteric motivations of the kabbalistic symbolism appear similar to that of the philosophical allegory.53 However, as Talmage analyzes, the strong line of differentiation between philosophical allegory and kabbalistic symbolism appears in their esoteric interpretations regarding the issue of taamei ha-mizvot (reason for the commandments).54 In all, this examination shows that the rabbinic tradition, which implicitly utilizes both allegory and symbolism, despite these incompatible features, offers critical evidence and insight into the continuity and development of the philosophical and mystical concepts and images of Torah from the ancient (Second Temple) and rabbinic mysticism through the medieval kabbalistic tradition.55 On the basis of this theory, Wolfson argues that early kabbalists created the sefirotic system of the theosophic kabbalah through the combination of philosophical rationalism and Jewish esotericism. For Wolfson, the sefirotic system is based on the combination between Jewish esotericism, which represents the internal, native, and mythopoetic, and philosophical rationalism, 50 Talmage, 328–33. 51 Talmage, 116; Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” in On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism (New Yok: Schocken Books, 1965), 41. 52 Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” in The Cultures of Maimonideanism: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought, ed. James T. Robinson (Leiden: Brill, 2009), 225–32. 53 Talmage, 331–37; Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” 52–53, 83–86. Both intend to uncover an inner and concealed meaning of the Torah, which is hidden and abstract and part of a very complex system of truth. 54 Talmage, 342–45. Unlike philosophical allegory, kabbalistic symbolism retains the integrity of both values, i.e., the actual observance of the commandments (original form) and their symbolic meanings (its context). See Tishby, Mishnat ha-Zohar II. 364–65. The kabbalistic symbolism does not annul the literal meanings of the mitẓvot themselves while the philosophical allegory does. 55 Saperstein, Decoding the Rabbis, 219–20.

272

Chapter 4

which represents the external, intrusive, and logocentric.56 This implies that the thirteenth-century kabbalists also expanded these potential aspects of ancient Jewish mystical and rabbinic literature, which already contained mystical and philosophical features, into the kabbalistic contexts. Wolfson further elucidates the critical functions of kabbalistic symbolism by explaining the theory of language, and thereby the interactions between the mythic and philosophic depictions in the kabbalistic texts that underlie them.57 In contrast to the conventional conception of language grounded in the Aristotelian and Maimonidean views, the linguistic theory of kabbalah posits an intrinsic connection between the word or letters of Torah and God, and thus recognizes the possibility of expressing, if only symbolically, the divine essence in language.58 Even if the early kabbalists did not regard language as capable of expressing directly and essentially the divine essence or the three highest sefirot, they tried to express indirectly the secret of the sefirot through a “mythic” language and its system of symbols. In this context, Liebes offers a definition of “mythic language” as expressing “a direct relationship to the divine entity itself,” which can be applied for “all other observable phenomena,” in contrast to the conventional conception of a “symbolic language” defined by scholars of Jewish mysticism.59 Dauber also characterizes the feature of “mythic language” as “the displacement of signification” of the sefirot in the “symbolic chains” as the matrix of myth, on the basis of Ferdinand de Saussure’s semiotics, i.e., the signs (the signifier and the signified) have their own meanings with a “pure difference” in relation to other signs.60 This implies that the “mythic language” in the sefirotic system displaces and redirects a dynamic immediacy of the divine (i.e., the upper three sefirot) into their gendered and anthropomorphic depictions of the lower seven sefirot.61 In this vein, Dauber emphasizes the role of myth as an intuitive “tool,” which already existed in the self-awareness of the 56 E. Wolfson, “Hebraic and Hellenic conceptions of wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir,” 152; Idel, KNP, 252–53. 57 Wolfson, “Hebraic and Hellenic conceptions of wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir,” 147–76. 58 Scholem and Simon Pleasance, “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbalah,” Diogenes 20.79 (1972): 59–80; Pines, Guide, I. 6; I. 61; II. 30; Bernard Septimus, “Maimonides on Language,” The Culture of Spanish Jewry: Proceedings of the First International Congress, ed. Aviva Doron (Israel: Levinsky College of Education Publishing House, 1994), 44–46. 59 Liebes, “De Natura Dei,” 2–3. 60 Jonathan Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 131, 133–38. Cf. Ferdinand de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. Roy Harris (La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1983). 61 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 477–80.

A God-Like Image of Torah

273

kabbalists, for expressing implicitly the divine essence in the sefirotic system.62 Wolfson also points out that the early kabbalists utilized “imagination” as an intermediating “tool” in transforming the ontological abstractions contained in the upper three sefirot (i.e., keter, ḥokhmah, and binah) into the mythic and anthropomorphic depictions of the seven lower sefirot, such as hesed, din, and tiferet while narrowing the radical gap between them.63 This implies that the mythic depictions of the divine realms are based on the assumption of the impossibility of participating in the “immediacy” of the divine essence.64 Yet, this does not mean that experience of the divine essence is impossible. On the basis of this conceptual backdrop of the mythic and linguistic aspects of the sefirot, Dauber primarily analyzes the philosophic and theosophic influences of bar Hiyya on the conception of the cosmology and understanding of divine unity in the Bahir and early and thirteenth-century kabbalists.65 Dauber elucidates that the meanings of “pure wisdom,” “pure thought,” and the Logos in bar Hiyya’s system, and their intimate interactions technically correspond – at least in the eyes of the first kabbalists – to “intra-divine cognitive faculties,” i.e., the upper three sefirot (keter, ḥokhmah, and binah) in the Godhead in the sefirotic system.66 Scholem and Isaiah Tishby also analyze the affinity of early kabbalists to bar Hiyya’s system by showing the terminological and ideational relationship, as related to divine unity, between bar Hiyya and early kabbalists, such as R. Ezra and Azriel of Gerona.67 Bar Hiyya, in Megillat ha-Megalle, further explains that “pure wisdom” is the embodiment of the written and oral Torahs.68 Interestingly, Hiyya’s conception of “pure wisdom” in the beginning

62 63 64 65 66 67

68

Ibid., 300. Wolfson, Through a Speculum That Shines, 304. Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 240. Dauber, “‘Pure Thought’ in R. Abraham Bar Hiyya and Early Kabbalah,” JJS 60.2 (2009): 185–201. Ibid. Ibid. Azriel, Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, ed. Isaiah Tishby (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1982), 41b–42a (pp. 82–83), 45a (p. 151, n. 6 and n. 7), 46a–47a (pp. 154–56); Scholem, “Traces of Gabirol in the Kabbalah,” in Studies in Kabbalah I, ed. J. Ben-Shlomo and Moshe Idel (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: ʿAm ʿOved, 1998), 39–66. Abraham bar Hiyya, Sefer Megillat ha-Megalle, ed. Adolf Poznanski, annotated and expanded by Julius Guttmann (Berlin: Verein Mekize Nirdamim, 1924), xiii, 27; idem, Hegyon ha-Nefesch ha-Atzuvah Col. 1., 39, 46, 55. For bar Hiyya, in Sefer Megillat ha-Megalle 5, 10 (shaʿar 1), and 52 (shaʿar 3), and Hegyon ha-Nefesch ha-Atzuvah Col. 1. 41, the actions of the “pure thought” (‫ )מחשבה הטהורה‬and the pure will (or the Logos) appear to be parallel to a “matter and form” in potential, which is identified as tohu and bohu respectively in Gen 1:2. Cf. Dauber, “Pure Thought’ in R. Abraham Bar Hiyya and Early Kabbalah,” 190–201; Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 62–63.

274

Chapter 4

of creation is connected to personified Wisdom (Prov 8:30) in creation, which is identified with preexistent Torah, as discussed in Gen. Rab. i. 1.69 As Haviva Pedaya discussed, “pure (or divine) thought” in sec. 48 (in an early redactional layer) of the Bahir appears to symbolically identify with ear, alef, and Tetragrammaton (‫)יהוה‬, the first sefirah keter, as well as Ein Sof.70 In secs. 43 and 53 (presumably a later redactional layer) of the Bahir, the divine will (ratson) is designated by the alef as a reference to the first sefirah.71 In sec. 32 of the Bahir, “pure thought” is identified as the second sefirah, ḥokhmah (i.e., yod), and the Logos is subsequently identified with the third sefirah, binah.72 In the secs. 22, 87, and 94 of the Bahir, just as the first sefirah, “pure wisdom,” emanates the remaining nine sefirot, the first Logos emanates the remaining nine logoi (nine cosmic entities or intellects) in the ten logoi (which are identical with the Ten Commandments, known as the “Torah of truth”).73 R. Asher, instead of the “pure thought,” places the divine will on the first sefirah, which

69

This substantiates the importance of “pure wisdom,” which is identical to preexistent Torah, in bar Hiyya’s system. See also Wolfson, Philo, 1:243. 70 Pedaya, “The Provencal Stratum in the Redaction of Sefer ha-Bahir,” Shlomo Pines Jubilee Volume (= Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought), vol. 9, ed. Warren Z. Harvey (Jerusalem: Hamakor Press 2, 1990), 151–53; Pedaya, Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Comparative Study in the Writings of Earliest Kabbalist (Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001), 78–85. See Abrams, ed., The Book Bahir, sec. 48. 71 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 149–50; Pedaya, “The Provencal Stratum in the Redaction of Sefer ha-Bahir,” 149–55. 72 See the English translations in Dauber, Standing, 147. “Another explanation: In order that world should not say, since they are ten sayings for ten kings perhaps, they could not have been spoken by one? It is written [therefore] in it [i.e., the Ten Commandments] “I” (ʾanokhi), and it included all of them. And what are the ten angels? Seven sounds and three logi (ʾamarim). And what are logi? As it is written, “And the Lord has affirmed (he-ʾamirkha) this day” (Dt 26:18). And what are the three? As it is written, “The beginning of wisdom (ḥokhmah) is – acquire wisdom (ḥokhmah), with all your acquisitions acquire understanding (binah)” (Prov 4:7). As it is written, “the soul of Shaddai that gives them understanding (tavinem)” (Job 32:8): The soul of Shaddai, she will understand them. The third, what is it? As a certain elder said to a certain boy, “what is more wondrous than you, do not inquire; what is hidden from you, do not investigate” (Sir 3:21–22). Peer at what is permitted to you, and you have no dealings in the hidden things.” 73 Idel, “The Sefirot Above the Sefirot,” Tarbiz 51 (1981–82): 271–77 (Hebrew); The concept of the logi appears in Enneads V; IX. 5, where the Intellect is described as the “primal law-giver to being.” The thirteenth century Geronese kabbalist, R. Azriel also appears to identify the first Logos (which is identified with the Active Intellect or the Universal Intellect) with “Torah of truth” (Mal 2:6), while emphasizing the transcendence of the Ein Sof. See Azriel, Kabbalistic Works of R. Azriel of Girona, ed. Oded Porat (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2019), (fols. 90–98), 21; (fols. 262–65), 26.

A God-Like Image of Torah

275

is designated by the alef and is the closest to or even identical with Ein-Sof.74 In the system of R. Asher ben David, who was a Provençal kabbalist, “pure thought” is downgraded as the second sefirah, which is identified with “pure wisdom” (i.e., ḥokhmah), whereas the divine (or pure) will is the first sefirah, or even an identical entity to Ein-Sof.75 By this logic, “pure thought,” which is identical to the second sefirah, ḥokhmah (i.e., yod), plays a role in creating the world and emanating all the sefirot (i.e., separate intellects).76 Through this examination, we can see the dynamical relationships and interactions between the concepts of “intra-divine cognitive faculties” (i.e., “pure thought” and “pure wisdom” and the Logos) in bar Hiyya’s system and the upper three sefirot (keter, ḥokhmah, and binah) within the sefirotic system in the Bahir. This also corroborates not only the dynamical relationships between the three highest sefirot and “pure thought” which encompasses the first sefirah, keter and Ein Sof, but also the significance of the second sefirah, ḥokhmah, which interacts with the concepts of “pure thought” and “pure wisdom.” Specifically, “pure thought” plays a critical role in connecting the keter and Ein Sof with the ḥokhmah and the remaining sefirot, and in creating and highlighting a divine-like image of ḥokhmah, which interacts with the concept and image of Torah. The God-like image of ḥokhmah, which appears closer to God and virtually unknowable, and as prior to and superior over the images of binah and the other lower sefirot, substantiates a God-like image of Torah. Specifically, it is crucial to note that Dauber analyzes, in the context of the Maimonidean controversy, R. Ezra and R. Azriel of Gerona’s conception of divine unity based on the second sefirah, ḥokhmah.77 R. Ezra of Gerona, in the Commentary on the Song of Songs, describes the ḥokhmah as profoundly related to the divine unity and the conception of Torah as the divine names.78 R. Azriel, in the Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, defines the divine unity through the ḥokhmah as “united in holiness” and an all-encompassing whole, while the first sefirah, keter, actually encompasses all the lower sefirot 74 Altmann, “Problems of Research in Jewish Neoplatonism,” 503–4. This may show the influence of the system of Solomon ibn Gabirol, who was, in turn, influenced by the Theology of Aristotle. For Gabirol, the divine will is interposed between the One and the Universal Intellect. 75 Asher ben David, “Sefer ha-Yihud,” in His Complete Works and Studies in His Kabbalistic Thought, ed. D. Abrams (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1996), 105–6. 76 Idel, “Kabbalistic Prayer in Provence,” 283. 77 Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” 73–75. 78 Ezra of Gerona, “Commentary on the Song of Songs,” in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban: A Collection of Nahmanides’ Speculative Treatises, ed. Charles B. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964), 1:2 (p. 485); 3:9 (pp. 493–94). See also Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” 45, 50.

276

Chapter 4

in terms of differentiation and particularization.79 R. Ezra and R. Azriel develop a specific tradition, which is related to the sefirah of ḥokhmah through the mashal of ḥokhmah. Both R. Azriel and R. Ezra explicitly connects the term ‫( אמן‬or ‫ (אמון‬in Prov 8:30 to the second sefirah, ḥokhmah, which is derived from Ein-Sof and conjoins and unifies the ten sefirot, as the basis of divine unity.80 By this logic, they associate the second sefirah ḥokhmah, with the concept of the Torah, i.e., the primordial Torah, which is identified with personified Wisdom.81 Furthermore, for them, the ḥokhmah becomes the symbol for the Torah that is the explication of the Divine Name, i.e., the Tetragrammaton.82 As Dauber also explains, R. Asher identifies the Tetragrammaton (of the third name) as (divine) essence (ʿetsem), which unifies the three higher sefirot, keter, ḥokhmah, and binah, in the ascending order in shemaʿ prayer.83 This implies that the divine essence which is identified with the Tetragrammaton and eventually with Ein-Sof, is separate from the lower sefirot, which, as a result of their more mythic nature, are not part of the divine essence. For R. Azriel, who is the thirteenth-century Geronese kabbalist, the Tetragrammaton not only functions as a critical apparatus for mapping out the divine unity and unifying the sefirot in a matrix of mythic symbols, but also designates the divine essence in the three highest sefirot as an indirect explanation of Ein Sof.84 R. Azriel, due to the impossibility of positive knowledge of God, transforms the exoteric descriptions into an esoteric knowledge through a matrix of mythic symbols in the sefirotic system. In this context, he also describes the divine unity of the sefirot as divine attributes, which are made for examining the limitlessness of Ein-Sof as an ontic source, while implicitly emphasizing the transcendence, simplicity, and uniqueness of Ein Sof.85 This eventually substantiates that the 79 80 81 82

Azriel of Gerona, Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, 41a–44b (pp. 81–88). Ibid., 8a (p. 20); 41a–41b (pp. 81–82). Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” 42, 78. Like R. Ezra, R. Azriel of Gerona, in Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, 37, also emphasizes that the Torah is the Name of God and that it is a living body with a soul. See Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” 73–75. 83 Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah,” 73–75. 84 Azriel, Kabbalistic Works of R. Azriel of Girona, 1:4–5. R. Azriel also describes the details of the Tetragrammaton in relation to the divine essence and divine unity regarding the proper intention of shemaʿ prayer in the ascending order. See Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 19–21; Roland Goetschel, “‘Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh’ in The Works of the Gerona Kabbalists,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 293–96 (Hebrew). 85 R. Azriel, Kabbalistic Works, 20–21 (‫שער השואל‬, fol‪s. 45–89). This reflects a seemingly contradictory position of R. Azriel, who argues for both the possibility and impossibility of knowledge of the highest sefirot and divine essence. See idem, Kabbalistic Works of R. Azriel of Girona, 21 (fols. 94–99).‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

A God-Like Image of Torah

277

secret of the Tetragrammaton as divine essence appears to be revealed by the symbolic imageries of the lower sefirot in a mythic and linguistic symbolism. Interestingly, despite the influence of Maimonides, who focused on the divine attributes, on Abulafia’s thought, Abulafia’s distinctive emphasis is on the sefirot and the divine names. Abulafia identifies the sefirot not only as the “attributes of God,” but also as the “channels” which facilitate the intellectual overflow of the devekut to the divine names and the Tetragrammaton.86 While categorically rejecting the theosophic conception of the sefirot as the hypostatic notions in the Geronese tradition, he also understands the ten sefirot as separate intellects that function within the divine unity. For Abulafia, the sefirot are separate from God, but esoterically are contained within the divine unity in a manner similar to the bahiric and early kabbalistic traditions. As Wolfson notes, Abulafia, in order to explain the features of the Tetragrammaton as divine essence, primarily elucidates the relationship between the ten sefirot and the letters of the Torah.87 This shows that in Abulafia’s system, unlike the angelic images of Torah, which mainly appear in the images of the hypostatic notions, such as the Active Intellect, Metatron, shekhinah in relation to merkavah imagery in the operation of devekut, the God-like image of Torah is implicitly formulated in the images of the letters of the Tetragrammaton as divine essence. Abulafia’s system regarding the sefirot and the letters of the Tetragrammaton, also appears in de Leon’s ʾOr Zaruʿa. Tishby and Liebes analyze the four stages of de Leon’s intellectual development: 1) philosophical works based on Maimonidean thought; 2) Midrash ha-Neʿelam based on mythical-theosophic speculation and allegorical-linguistic mysticism; 3) Hebrew writings, such as ʾOr Zaruʿa with a form, which combines mythic-theosophic and philosophic speculation; 4) the Zohar with its fully mythic thought.88 Altmann notes that ʾOr Zaruʿa endorses divine unity, understood in Neoplatonic terms as simplicity 86 Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia  – Kabbalist and Prophet: Hermeneutics, Theosophy, and Theurgy, vol. 7 (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2000), 5–8. Wolfson implies that Abulafia’s conception of the intellectual overflow of the Active Intellect is related to the secrets of the relationship between the sefirot as “channels” and the Tetragrammaton as divine essence (6). However, Idel disagrees with Wolfson’s position. For Idel, Abulafia’s conception of the sefirot is based on a clear distinction between the sefirot and God as Intellect in lieu of the Maimonidean theology. As Idel, in The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 8, argued, it also seems to be clear that Abulafia has a little sense of the sefirotic system in relation to the shekhinah. 87 Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 5–8. 88 Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, 87; Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1:95–96. Tishby and Liebes point out the distinction between allegorical features of the Midrash ha-Neʿelam in the sections of the Zohar and the symbolic features of the main body of the Zohar.

278

Chapter 4

free of composition and excluding a theosophic presentation of the divine as composed of a multiplicity of the sefirot.89 In this sense, Altmann emphasizes a distinction between the view of the divine in ʾOr Zaruʿa and a theosophic view of de Leon’s later works. Yet despite the strong philosophic leaning in ʾOr Zaruʿa, Asi Farber-Ginat, on the basis of a text in Sod Darke ha-ʾOtiyot, which is considered a source for ʾOr Zaruʿa, proves that ʾOr Zaruʿa includes two accounts of divine unity: as a simplicity and as the coming together of multiple divine unities.90 This represents the combination of the mythic and philosophic features. It is notable that, in the opening of Part One of ʾOr Zaruʿa, de Leon defines the divine unity as the divine uniqueness, while in the body of Part Six, he elaborates on the separateness of the Tetragrammaton from Elohim, a divine name that is used in the same manner that the yod is employed (i.e., ḥokhmah) in Sod Darke ha-ʾOtiyot.91 De Leon thereby claims the uniqueness and transcendence of the Tetragrammaton, such that it is not combined with divine names, like Elohim.92 In addition, for de Leon, Elohim indicates highest (or the first) intellect, which appears close to the concept of demiurge, who is the locus of all existences in potentia, in the closest proximity to God. Elohim, to put it in terms of the sefirot, is similar to ḥokhmah, which is translated as Nous (i.e., the Neoplatonic hypostasis).93 This shows that Elohim is separate from the Tetragrammaton and the One who is beyond any multiplicity (e.g., Dt 6:4), and is also not the same as the Active Intellect (which is the tenth intellect) of the medieval Aristotelian tradition and the shekhinah in the Abulafian tradition. In this context, Dauber shows the evidence of the mythic features of an erotic union between the Tetragrammaton as a stamp and Elohim as a 89 Altmann, “Sefer Or Zaruʿa le-R. Moshe de Leon: Mavo text criti ve-heʿarot,” Kovetz al Yad 9 (1980): 235–40. For Altmann, de Leon composed ʾOr Zaruʿa before composing Midrash ha-Neʿelam. Accordingly, regarding the dating of de Leon’s ʾOr Zaruʿa, Altmann disagrees with Scholem’s and Tishby’s approach based on the linear presentation of de Leon’s intellectual development. 90 Farber-Ginat, “On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de Leon’s Early Kabbalistic System,” 70–82 (Hebrew). This work, which is pseudo-epigraphically attributed to Abraham b. David, opens with the words sod darke ha-ʾotiyot (secret of the paths of the letters) in two of its manuscripts, MSS Vatican and MSS Paris. Despite the similarities of their concepts and methodologies, for Farber-Ginat, ʾOr Zaruʿa is more related to other texts of linguistic mysticism, such as sod darkei ha-otiyot than it is to Ginat Egoz. See Scholem, “Eine unbekannte mystische Schrift des Mose de Leon,” 121, n. 3. 91 De Leon, ʾOr Zaruʿa, 251, 283, 285; Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 318–25. 92 De Leon, ʾOr Zaruʿa, 251. “Do not think in your mind that the appellative which is Elokeynu [or Elohim] is his unique name, heaven forbid (halilah); rather ‘The Lord (YHWH) is one.’” 93 Farber-Ginat, 77–82. The sefirah, ḥokhmah is related to the concept of demiurge who is the locus of all existences in potentia, but not the One who is beyond any multiplicity.

A God-Like Image of Torah

279

seal in ʾOr Zaruʿa.94 The erotic union between the Tetragrammaton and Elohim is described in a mythic and gendered sense of the hypostasized notions in relation to merkavah imagery.95 This shows that de Leon systematizes that within Elohim, i.e., the highest intellect or sefirah, the ten sefirot are present in a potential form in an esoteric sense.96 In all, de Leon’s elaboration on Elohim appears to be connected to Abulafia’s works on the mervakvah imagery which is interpreted by the linguistic techniques for revealing the secrets of the Tetragrammaton. This examination shows that in Abulafia’s system and de Leon’s ʾOr Zaruʿa, a God-like image of Torah is implicitly formulated in the letters of the Tetragrammaton, which appears to be identified with the divine essence in relation to the sefirot and merkavah imagery. Like Abulafia and de Leon, Gikatilla also expounds the secret of the Tetragrammaton, which denotes the mysteries of the letters of the Torah in relation to the merkavah imagery.97 It is first crucial to note that Gikatilla primarily conceptualizes the mystical meaning of the Torah. For Gikatilla, the Torah itself appears not only as a symbolic map that allows for the navigation of the entire spectrum of the secret and hidden meanings of the texts in the Torah, but also as an immense system of the sefirotic symbols reflecting the inner workings of the divine and the world. The whole Torah, which is “a fabric of appellatives” woven from the epithets of God, not only appears as the mystical body of the sefirotic system, but is also implicitly connected with the Divine Name, i.e., the Tetragrammaton.98 By this logic, Gikatilla claims

94 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 320–25. 95 De Leon, ʾOr Zaruʿa, 260, 271, 283, 286. De Leon also explains the relationship of the Tetragrammaton and Elohim by explicating the secret of the divine unity, such as the plurality of God in Gen 1:26 and the meaning of the Divine Name in Ex 23:21. De Leon, ʾOr Zaruʿa, 283: “I already informed you above of a great and wondrous secret regarding the issue of the extension of the light of the tenth sphere (i.e., Elohim) that is moved by the will of the Lord, may He be blessed, when He emanates the light of his radiance in him (i.e. Elohim), because when the stamp of the king is in his innards (be-kirbo) in the secret of the Blessed, then he moves the rest and places his emanation in them.” See the English translations is from Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 319–21. 96 Idel, “The Sefirot above the Sefirot,” 239–80. 97 Afterman, And They Shall Be One Flesh, 109; Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 22a, 23b, 65a, 65b. Gikatilla asserts that the essence of the divine names is not holistically contained in the physical form of letters, but the letters are vessels that contain the divine metaphorically. Divine unity thereby alludes to the secret of maʿaseh merkavah and involves letter permutation and transposition of the divine names. 98 Joseph ben Abraham Gikatilla, Shaʿarei ʾOrah, vol. 1, ed. Joseph ben-Shlomo (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1970), 2.

280

Chapter 4

that the Torah as the Name of God expresses God Himself.99 The Torah plays a critical role, not only in connecting the finite human soul to the infinite of the living God, but also, implicitly in creating a God-like image of the sefirot as comprised of the hypostatic notions of Torah through the creative power of these linguistic techniques. Through the various linguistic techniques and symbolism (e.g., transposition and permutation) of the letters in the Torah, Gikatilla identifies the implications of the Tetragrammaton for elucidating maʿaseh merkavah. Like Abulafia’s radical conception of the letters of the Tetragrammaton based on Maimonides’ theory,100 Gikatilla pursues a mystical mechanism for revealing the secret and decoding the cosmological functions of the chariot.101 In Ginnat ʾEgoz, Gikatilla explains the relationship of the letters in the Tetragrammaton with the mystery of four prime letters (‫)א״ב ג״ד‬, which is the secret of the merkavah imagery.102 The four prime letters (‫ )א״ב ג״ד‬correspond to the four archangels, which are called the “lower chariot,” while the letter yod symbolizes the second sefirah, ḥokhmah, merging all the letters, and is called the “upper chariot.”103 Gikatilla particularly makes the connection of ḥashmal – an element of Ezekiel’s merkavah vision – to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, i.e., the mystery of the highest internal letters for the account of the chariot.104 This corroborates a conceptual and literary nexus between the merkavah

99

Scholem, “The Meaning of the Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” 42–43; Michael T. Miller, “The Metaphysical Meaning of the Name of God in Jewish Thought: A Philosophical Analysis of Historical Traditions from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages” (PhD diss. University of Nottingham, 2014), 179–80. The maʿaseh merkavah in Hekhalot literature includes lists of descriptions or attributes of God, which are repeated and inverted, often including reference. This corroborates the identification between God and the Divine Name in the letters of the Torah. 100 Pines, Guide I. 61. Maimonides regards the Tetragrammaton as “the proper name” of God, which is different from all the names of God deriving from His actions. 101 Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 30–37, 100–5; Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 339. Idel, in KNP, 97–103, notes that Abulafia’s techniques relate to an ecstatic practice that began with the merkavah texts of late antiquity and continued in Hasidei Ashkenaz. It involves the letter combination of divine names. 102 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 22a–23c. In Shaʿarei Ẓedek and Shaʿarei ʾOrah, Gikatilla returns to this correlation of merkavah imagery and letter symbolism, which also can be found in a much older tradition attested in the writings of several of his predecessors, such as Eleazar ben Judah of Worms. See Eleazar’s book, Sodei Razaya: Sefer Alfa Beta = Secrets of Raziel: Book of the Alphabet, ed. Fabrizio Del Tin. Trieste (Italy: eUniversity Pub., 2018); Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 212; Afterman, And they Shall be One Flesh, 159. 103 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 204–5. 104 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, fols. 5c, 5d, 12d, 13a, 13b, 37b; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 210–11.

A God-Like Image of Torah

281

imagery and the Tetragrammaton.105 Gikatilla explicates the divine name, ‫הו‬, which makes up half of the Tetragrammaton, as referring to a charioteer, who transcends the cosmic structure, and the four prime letters as referring to the chariot, which is identical to the cosmological structure as the spheres.106 In explaining the merkavah imagery of the charioteer and chariot, Gikatilla postulates the symbolic resemblance between the cosmological structure, which includes intellects and spheres, and the linguistic structure, which includes the vowels and consonants. The cosmic relationship between the charioteer, as the mover, and chariot, as the moved, is elaborated in terms of the linguistic relation between vowels (separate intellects) and consonants (the spheres of the world).107 The images and activities of ḥashmal in merkavah imagery resembles those of vowels moving the consonants of the Tetragrammaton and changing the meanings in accordance with the various types of vocalization (ha-niqqud).108 More strikingly in Ginnat ʾEgoz, Gikatilla, through the gematria, explains that the chariot is identical with the cosmological structure (= 10), and He who rides the chariot is a transcendent divine being (= 11) which implies the mystery of ‫ =( יא‬11).109 Gikatilla, for the most part, follows Abulafia’s linguistic techniques of letter combination and gematriot regarding the divine names as sefirotic symbols that are related to the mysteries of the merkavah imagery. In addition, in a similar sense to the sefirotic symbolism in 105 Scholem, Major Trends, 194; Shlomo Blickstein, “Between Philosophy and Mysticism: A Study of the Philosophical-Qabbalistic Writings of Joseph Gikatilla” (Ph.D. diss., The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983), 115–23; Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 30–37; idem, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, 40–41, 109. 106 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 226–27. ‬In terms of the equivalence of numerical values, the letters ‫ יהו״ה‬are alphabetically contiguous to ‫כוזו‬. 107 Pines, Guide II. 10, pp. 271–73; Guide I. 71, pp. 174–77; Isaiah Tishby, Mishnat Ha-Zohar I, 3rd ed. (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971), 416; Asi Farber-Ginat, “On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de Leon’s Early Kabbalistic System,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1/2 (1983): 80. 108 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 36a: “Know that the vowels and the consonants instruct us about the form of the entire world, the mystery of all the properties, and the order of the chariots.”; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 210–12. Gikatilla emphasizes that the whole cosmological structure as one unified organism is comprised of intellects as the vowels, which are the efficient cause, and spheres as the consonants that correspond to the cosmos. 109 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 22a, 23b, 65a, 65b; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 205–13. Besides, Gikatilla explicates that the mystery of ‫ כוזו‬is represented by the name ‫כוזו במוכסז כוזו‬ which represents the Tetragrammaton by means of the ancient techniques of letter permutation. The term ‫ אבגד‬as the secret of maʿaseh merkavah is mentioned in Ginnat ʾEgoz and Gikatilla’s untitled commentary on the Torah. Gikatilla also exemplifies five pairs of the first ten letters: ‫הח אט בח גז דו‬, while identifying these five pairs as the mystery of the relationship of the letter yod and the merkavah imagery. The letter yod, as the “mystery of the knot,” holds five letter pairs in the chariot together and sustains them.

282

Chapter 4

the Zoharic sources, the second sefirah, ḥokhmah (yod) appears as a nut (‫(אגוז‬ which is a concealed chariot, whereas the third sefirah, binah (heh), appears as a nut which is a revealed chariot.110 Furthermore, Gikatilla, in his later work, Shaʿarei ʾOrah, delves into the secrets of the letters of the Torah which denote the mysteries and structure of the entire creation of the world. As Idel analyzes, the hermeneutical system of Shaʿarei ʾOrah allows readers to access to the secret of the letters of the Torah on a deeper level of symbolic interpretations of the sefirotic system and merkavah imagery.111 In this sense, Idel further investigates the relationships between language and ontology, and between the divine names and the letters of the Torah in Shaʿarei ʾOrah and Shaʿar ha-Niqqud.112 As Wolfson notes, Gikatilla describes the images of the sefirot and God as a divine reality in the mythic and anthropomorphic descriptions on the basis of the semiotic nature and “tonality of the textual body” of the Torah through the lens of sefirotic symbolism.113 Specifically, as Lachter notes, in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, the conception of the Tetragrammaton in relation to the merkavah imagery alludes to a relationship between the ten sefirot and Ein Sof as the divine essence, which operates the ten sefirot beyond their boundaries and constraints.114 This shows that, in Gikatilla’s system, the features of the letters of the Torah, especially the four letters of the Tetragrammaton, symbolize the entire spectrum of creation and are eventually woven into the Torah.115 By this logic, Gikatilla creates a God-like image of Torah, which implicitly appears in the mythic and anthropomorphic descriptions of the merkavah imagery in relation to the sefirotic system corresponding to the source of all created things through a linguistic and sefirotic symbolism.

110 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 213–15. 111 Idel, KNP, 211. 112 Gikatilla, Shaʿar ha-Niqqud, fol. 39b. See also Idel, Absorbing Perfections, 29–30, 296–304, idem, Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1989), 109. 113 Wolfson, “Mirror of Nature Reflected in the Symbolism of Medieval Kabbalah,” in Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word, ed. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002), 317. 114 Lachter, “Kabbalah, Philosophy, and the Jewish-Christian Debate,” 35–40. 115 Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 213–15. For Gikatilla, the Torah is woven from appellatives derived from the Tetragrammaton. Cf. Boaz Huss, “Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Definition of Symbolism and it Influence on Kabbalistic Literature,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12 (1996): 157–76 (Hebrew).

A God-Like Image of Torah

2

283

God-Like Image of Torah Related to the Idea of Unio Mystica to the Sefirot

On the basis of the previous examination of the continuity and development of the God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron, and the sefirot of shekhinah and ḥokhmah, I now will delve into the idea of unio mystica, which significantly operates in the formulative process of the God-like images of Torah, and thereby will corroborate the continuity of the idea of unio mystia from ancient Jewish roots to the kabbalistic thought. Scholem points out that the idea of devekut was “a widespread tendency in Kabbalah,” although he believed that the idea of unio mystica, i.e., the complete union with God, did not accord with the essence of kabbalah and Jewish mysticism.116 In contrast to the idea of devekut, the idea of unio mystica is defined as a complete unification of the human soul and the divine, which eliminates the distance between them. For this reason, this idea of the existence of unio mystica in kabbalah has been consistently rejected by leading scholars, such as Scholem, who all emphasize the ontological and epistemological separations between God and human beings in the history of Jewish mysticism.117 This echoes the direction of the traditional Jewish philosophical mainstreams which maintained the divide between the physical, human realms, and the spiritual, divine realms against the backdrop of a transcendent concept of God.118 Nevertheless, the idea of unio mystica appears in various literary and symbolic expressions in numerous Jewish mystical and kabbalistic sources. In this context, several scholars have tried to reassess Scholem’s dominant view, while proposing an alternative view on the place of unio mystica in kabbalah.119 Idel notes cases of Islamic rationalistic theology and Christian doctrinal and intellectual theology that produced extreme assertions of the mystical union with God. Since both faiths subscribe to a transcendent notion of God, a transcendent theology cannot be the reason for the suppression of 116 Scholem, “Devekut or Communion with God,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken, 1971), 203–4; idem, Major Trends, 55–66. 117 Ibid. 118 Scholem, “Mysticism and Society,” Diogenes 58 (1967): 16. Cf. Steven T. Katz, “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism,” in Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. ed. Steven T. Katz (New York: Oxford University Press, 1978), 35–36. 119 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 2:288–90; Efraim Gottlieb, Studies in the Kabbalah Literature, ed. J. Hacker (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Tel Aviv University, 1976), 237–38; Mordechai Pachter, “The Concept of Devekut in the Homiletical Ethical Writings of 16th Century Safed,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 2, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 224–25; Katz, “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism,” 69.

284

Chapter 4

unitive experience and imagery.120 In this sense, Idel states that despite the belief in divine transcendence and the “reticence” of scholars regarding the idea of unio mystica in Jewish mysticism, the idea of unio mystica was a recurring theme in the Jewish mystical writings.121 2.1 In the Philonic Tradition Prior to diving into the investigation of the idea of unio mystica in relation to the sefirotic system in kabbalistic tradition, I will first discuss Philo’s idea of unio mystica, which can be considered a primitive form of the later unio mystica and provides a critical insight into its development into a full-fledged form throughout the history of Jewish thought. Philo mainly takes an apophatic approach to the essence of God, while utilizing the idea of the Logos as an allegorical apparatus for analyzing the divine essence, divine transcendence, and the idea of devekut. Specifically, it is notable that, as Harry Wolfson points out, Philo uses the term Wisdom as a substitute for the terms Logos and Nous in the sense of the human mind.122 For Philo, Wisdom as a hypostatic notion can also be used as the equivalent of Logos (Leg. I. xix, 65), which is not only identified with the revealed Law, but also with the Word of God.123 Philo’s concept of Wisdom appears not only as “the totality of the powers” prior to the creation of the world but also as “a property of God” (i.e., His own wisdom, Leg. II. xxii, 87), which is identical with His essence and eternality.124 Wolfson notes that the term Wisdom is taken as a property of God, while the term Logos stems from Wisdom. In this regard, Philo allegorically interprets the verse “A river goes out of Eden to water the garden: thence it separates into four heads” (Gen 2:10).125 For Philo, Eden means “the Wisdom of the Existent,” and “the divine Logos” descends from the fountain of Wisdom like a river. This implies the priority of Wisdom over Logos, as Wolfson notes.126 As mentioned earlier in the Septuagint ‫( קָ֭ נָ נִ י‬Prov 8:22) in Ebr. viii, 31, a term used in reference to 120 Idel, KNP, 59. 121 Ibid. 122 H. Wolfson, Philo, 1:254–56. The personification of wisdom in the Wisdom literature and Greek mythology appears in the senses of Nous and the mind of wisdom. Philo uses the Logos as a substitute for the Platonic term Nous. The term Nous is used as a designation of rational faculty in Aristotle. See Hermann Bonitz, Index to Aristoteles (Berolini: G. Reimer, 1831), 159. For the Stoics, the term Logos appears in the sense of a corporeal being, while for Philo, it is the totality of the ideas in the sense of an incorporeal being or divine mind created by God. See also Wolfson, Philo, 1:230–31. 123 Ibid. 124 Ibid. 125 Somn. II. xxxvi, 242–43. 126 Wolfson, Philo, 1:237–40.

A God-Like Image of Torah

285

Wisdom appears to be translated as “not-created” or “acquired (or obtained),” as opposed to the concept of Logos being described as “created.” Wolfson further discusses the instrumentality of the Logos and Wisdom, which are related to the Law of Moses, i.e., the Torah (Leg. III, xv, 46; Cher. xxxv, 125–27).127 In accordance with dualistic conception of the “image” of God connected to Philo’s Logos, the concept of Wisdom appears close to a God-like image of Torah as an “invisible” mediator, while the concept of revealed and immanent Logos appears close to the angelic image of Torah as a “visible” mediator.128 In this sense, as examined earlier, an angelic image of Torah appears in the angelic image of immanent Logos as an allegorical mediator along with Philo’s idea of devekut. By contrast, a God-like image of Torah appears in the God-like image of transcendent Wisdom as a hypostatic or divine light, which is an invisible and hidden mediator, along with Philo’s idea of unio mystica.129 In this context, Afterman traces the evidence of the continuity of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica along with the dual conception of Philo’s Logos, which are related to other hypostatic notions of Torah, and which dynamically developed from ancient Jewish roots to medieval Jewish mystical thought.130 Afterman analyzes a striking example of the distinctive aspects of Philo’s idea of unio mystica, one seemingly without a mediator (i.e., religious emotions of love and intimacy with the God of Israel), as seen in Dt 30:20 in Post. iv, 12–13 and Gig. xiii, 58–64.131 Interestingly, Afterman analyzes two forms of capacity for the unio mystica in Philo’s allegorical commentaries on the Mosaic Law: visio dei (i.e., contemplative vision of God) and unio mystica itself. The first is a capacity for visio dei, which means a “direct mystical vision” of God, without the Logos as a mediator; the second is capacity as an “intuition” for directly experiencing the divine essence and divine transcendence, i.e., unio mystica.132

127 Ibid. 128 Ibid., 1:254–56. 129 As examined earlier, Philo’s immanent Logos is identified with the revealed Law (e.g., Leg. III. xv, 46) while transcendent Wisdom appears equivalent to the preexistent Law, i.e., hypostatic Torah (e.g., Gen. Rab. i. 1; Sir 24:23) in the sense of Nous (the divine or incorporeal mind). 130 Afterman, “From Philo to Plotinus,” 177–96. 131 Ibid., 194–95. 132 Ibid. See also Philo, Post. xlviii, 167–69. For Philo, this verse, “See, see that I am” (Dt 32:39) means that He is “apprehended by clear intuition rather than demonstrated by arguments carried on in words.” In addition, this verse, “Thou shalt behold that which is behind Me, but My Face thou shalt not see” (Ex 33:23) explains His subsistence rather than His essence. Philo, Praem. vii, 43–46: “In the same way God too is His own brightness and is discerned through Himself alone, without anything co-operating or being able to

286

Chapter 4

Afterman demonstrates unio mystica without the mediating roles of the Logos by investigating Philo’s idea of henosis with God, which appears similar to a mystical union in the Neoplatonic tradition.133 It is notable that on the basis of the Platonic-Jewish thought, Philo develops the Deuteronomic conception of devekut (e.g., Dt 4:4, Dt 10:20, Dt 30:20, and Gen 2:24), through his allegorical interpretations, into a religious experience, and even the idea of unio mystica as the most intimate experience of God. Indeed, against the backdrop of the Deuteronomic commandment of devekut through the mediating roles of the Logos as the Image of God, Philo further explains the idea of unio mystica without a mediator or a hidden mediator.134 In other words, unlike the mystical visions through the gaze of the Logos as a mediator for the ideal of devekut, Philo appears to describe a direct and intimate experience of God without mediators.135 Philo thereby describes the process of the divine inspiration of the mind (or soul or intellect), i.e., transformation from the human mind to “the divinely inspired mind” by “a God-inspired ecstasy” (entheo mania) (Her. lii, 264–65; Fug. xxx, 166–168).136 It becomes clear that unlike a mere state of devekut, Philo identifies the unio mystica as an utmost

133 134

135

136

co-operate in giving a perfect apprehension of His existence … The seekers for truth are those who envisage God through God, light through light.” Afterman, “From Philo to Plotinus,” 186–96. See also Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology, 44; Plotinus, Enneads IV. 8.1; V. 3.17–37; VI. 9.9–11. Philo, Somn. I. xl, 231–32: “To the souls indeed which are incorporeal and are occupied in His worship it is likely that He should reveal Himself as He is, conversing with them as friend with friends; but to souls which are still in a body, giving Himself the likeness of angels, not altering His own nature, for He is unchangeable, but conveying to those which receive the impression of His presence a semblance in a different form, such that they take the image to be not a copy, but that original form itself.” Afterman, “From Philo to Plotinus,” 186, 191; Philo, QE 2, 40. In the interpretations of Ex 24:12a: “Come up to Me to the mountain and be there?” Philo notes, “This signifies that a holy soul is divinized by ascending not to the air or to the ether or to heaven (which is) higher than all but to (a region) above the heavens. And beyond the world there is no place but God.” Philo, Her. lii, 262: “For it says, ‘if a prophet of the Lord arise among you, I will be known to him in vision, but to Moses in actual appearance and not through riddles’ (Num 12:6, 8), and again ‘there no more rose up a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face’ (Dt 34:10). Admirably then does he describe the inspired when he says ‘about sunset there fell on him an ecstasy’ (Gen 15:12).” Philo, Her. li, 249: “Now ‘ecstasy’ or ‘standing out’ takes different forms.”; Fug. xxx, 166–68: “For the nature of the self-taught is new and higher than our reasoning, and in very deed Divine, arising by no human will or purpose but by a God-inspired ecstasy.”

A God-Like Image of Torah

287

state of ecstasy, which conveys “trance” (Leg. II. ix, 31), “divine possession,” and “inspired frenzy” (Migr. vii, 34–35; Her. lii, 259).137 On the basis of this theory, Philo conceptualizes the idea of henosis with God through the allegorical interpretations of Gen 2:24, Dt 18:1–2, Dt 10:20, and Dt 30:20.138 Philo thereby connects the idea of henosis to the conceptions of the devekut and uno mystica as the unity of “one flesh” of husband and wife in Gen 2:24, which is based on the allegories of man (the human mind) and his wife (sense perception).139 Philo further elaborates the idea of the unio mystica in the conception of man “standing” in/with God in Dt 5:31 and Dt 30:20.140 137 Philo, Her. lii, 259: “But when it [the sum/mind] comes to its setting, naturally ecstacy (ekstasis) and divine possession (entheos katokoche) and inspired frenzy (mania) fall upon us. God gives the gift of inspired/posssed frenzy to a true “lover of learning.” Migr. vii, 34–35: “I have approached my work empty and suddenly become full, the ideas falling in a shower from above and being sown invisibly, so that under the influence of the Divine possession I have been filled with corybantic frenzy and been unconscious of anything, place, persons present, myself, words spoken, lines written.” 138 Afterman, in “From Philo to Plotinus,” 194, notes that the concept of henosis shows an interpretative synthesis between Jewish mystical thought and “medieval Arab and Latin Neoplatonism.” See Gary Lease, “Jewish Mystery Cults since Goodenough,” ANRW 20 (1987): 862. 139 Ibid., 179, 195–96. Afterman also argues that Philo’s discussions of henosis had an impact on Plotinus’ idea of henosis and on the medieval Jewish, Christian, and Arab articulations of the idea and experience of unio mystica. Philo’s idea of unio mystica related to the concept of henosis has a profound relationship with or influence on the Neoplatonic conception of the human mind’s elevation and henosis. Indeed, the notion of “union” (ittihad) in the Islamic mystical tradition seems to trace back to the Neoplatonic concept of henosis as the ultimate stage of unio mystica as articulated by Plotinus. Also see Altmann, “Ibn Bajja on Man’s Ultimate Felicity,” in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969), 104. The union achieved between that human mind (or soul) and God is directly based on the notion of a hieros gamos symbolizing the marriage between the human mind (or soul) and sense experience. See Philo, Gig. xix, 61–62: “This Eve or sense from the very moment of coming into being through each of her parts as through orifices poured multitudinous light into the Mind and purging and dispersing the mist set it as it were in the place of a master, able to see in luminous clearness the natures of things bodily. And the Mind, like one enlightened by the flash of the sun’s beam, after night, or as one awakened from deep sleep.” Her. ix, 45–46: “Now there are three kinds of life, one looking Godwards, another looking to created things, another on the borderline, a mixture of the other two. It is the mixed life, which often drawn on by those of the higher line is possessed and inspired by God, though often pulled back by the worse it reverses its course.” Cf. Somn. I. xxiii, 151–52. 140 David T. Runia, Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers (Leiden: Brill, 1995), 199–200; As Runia describes, Philo explains the “standing” in/with God through the cases of Moses and Abraham. See Philo, Leg. III. xxxiii, 100–103; Post. ix, 29–30: “For I take it that, just as crooked things are straightened by a correct ruler, so moving things are brought to a stop and made stationary by the force of Him Who stands. In this case

288

Chapter 4

In this discussion, Philo particularizes Moses’s mind, which can approach the hidden essence of the First Cause through his “reflection,” by explaining the distinction between Moses and other prophets in Ex 24:2 (Leg. III. xxxv, 110f).141 Winston argues that Philo describes “reflection” as an “inner intuitive illumination” that results from Philo’s reasoned investigation.142 However, Philo appears to describe a state of prophecy, ecstatic divination, and “sober intoxication,” which appears as a direct interface with God Himself, in a manner different from other religious and mystical experiences focusing on mediating entities.143 The “inner intuitive illumination” in the human mind maintains the He charges another to stand with Him. Elsewhere He says, ‘I will go down with thee into Egypt, and will bring thee up at last’ (Gen. xlvi. 4). He does not say ‘thou with Me.’ Why is this? Because quiescence and abiding are characteristic of God but change of place and all movement that makes for such change is characteristic of creation. When then He invites a man to the good peculiar to Him, He says ‘Do thou stand with Me,’ not ‘I with thee’: for in God’s case standing is not a future but an ever-present act.” Cf. Philo, Cher. vi, 18–19; Gig. xi, 48–49; Conf. ix, 30–32. Philo also describes the state of the human mind, which dwells in God himself as a “place” or “a portion” like Moses the Levite, who dwells in God instead of a terrestrial portion of the Holy Land. This shows a similar sense to the devekut of “one flesh” in Gen 2:24. See Philo, Cher. xii–xv, 40–53. 141 Philo, Leg. III. xxxiii, 100–103: Moses’s mind is “more perfect and more thoroughly cleansed, which has undergone initiation into the great mysteries, and a mind which gains its knowledge of the First Cause (to aition) not from created things … but lifting its eyes above and beyond creation obtains a clear vision (or reflection) of the Uncreated One.” Philo, Sacr. iii, 8–10: “There are still others, whom God has advanced even higher, and has trained them to soar above species and genus alike and stationed them beside himself. Such is Moses to whom He says, ‘stand here with Me’ (Dt 5:31). But through the ‘Word’ of the Supreme Cause he is translated (Dt 34:5), even through that Word by which also the whole universe was formed … He appointed him as god, placing all the bodily region and the mind which rules it in subjection and slavery to him. ‘I give thee,’ He says, ‘as god to Pharaoh’ (Ex 7:1). One receives the clear vision of God directly from the First Cause Himself. The other discerns the Artificer, as it were from a shadow, from created things by virtue of a process of reasoning. Hence you will find the Tabernacle and all its furniture made in the first instance by Moses but afterwards by Bezalel, for Moses is the artificer of the archetypes, and Bezalel of the copies of these.” Cf. Post. xlviii, 167–69. 142 Winston, “Was Philo a Mystic?” in The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism, ed. Gregory E. Sterling (Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001), 155–61; idem, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985), 46–55. 143 Philo, Opif. xxiii–xxiv, 70–73: “It is invisible while itself seeing all things, and while comprehending the substances of others … And so, carrying its gaze beyond the confines of all substance discernible by sense, it comes to a point at which it reaches out after the intelligible world, and on descrying in that world sights of surpassing loveliness, even the patterns and the originals of the things of sense which it saw here, it is seized by a sober intoxication, like those filled with Corybantic frenzy, and is inspired, possessed by a longing far other than theirs and a nobler desire.” Cf. Praem. vii, 43–46.

A God-Like Image of Torah

289

divine transcendence by man “standing” in/with God while transcending his corporeality. By this logic, as Runia and Wolfson note, the unio mystica can co-exist with the divine transcendence and the incomprehensibility of divine essence.144 On the basis of these conceptions of the idea of unio mystica, as Schäfer also discussed, Philo’s conception of “reflection” as “inner intuitive illumination” appears close to an unmediated and intimate experience through a divine light, which is similar to the idea of Wisdom, rather than through the idea of immanent Logos.145 Winston argues that Philo mainly expresses religious and mystical experiences (e.g., prophecy, ecstatic divination) through the mediating roles of the Logos, by noting “human’s highest union with God, according to Philo, is limited to the Deity’s manifestation as Logos.”146 However, as Afterman analyzes, Philo’s conception “light through light” (e.g., Praem. vii, 43–46) appears to describe a direct nexus between human light and the divine light instead of a mediating role of the Logos.147 As noted earlier, for Philo, Wisdom as a property of God is also God’s own wisdom (Leg. II., xxi, 87; xxii, 88). The relationship between God’s own wisdom and human wisdom explicitly parallels the relationship between God’s own (divine) light and human light (or mind). The idea of unio mystica thereby can be described as the state and process of human light (or mind), which receives and is activated by divine light symbolized by divine Wisdom as a hidden mediator. This implies that Philo’s idea of unio mystica still necessitates the concept of an “reflection” as “inner intuitive illumination,” which appears to be symbolized by divine light as an invisible mediator, even if it does not necessitate the Logos as a visible mediator. In all, this examination clarifies the existence of two types of devekut in Philonic thought: the idea of devekut through mediating entities, i.e., a visible 144 Wolfson, Philo, 2:94–164; Runia, Philo of Alexandria, 442–43; Philo, Her. xlviii, 235–36. “The divine Word separated and apportioned all that is in nature. Our mind deals with all the things material and immaterial which the mental process brings within its grasp, divides them into an infinity of infinities and never ceases to cleave them. This is the result of its likeness to the Father and Maker of all. For the Godhead is without mixture or infusion or parts and yet has become to the whole world the cause of mixture, infusion, division, and multiplicity of parts.” 145 Schäfer, The Origins of Jewish Mysticism, 167, 169, 173–74. 146 Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria, 43–50; idem, “Was Philo a Mystic?” 151–59. 147 Afterman, op. cit., 185. Cf. Philo, Praem. vii, 43–46: “In the same way God too is His own brightness and is discerned through Himself alone, without anything co-operating or being able to co-operate in giving a perfect apprehension of His existence … The seekers for truth are those who envisage God through God, light through light.”

290

Chapter 4

(revealed) mediator as Logos, and the idea of unio mystica without a mediator or through an invisible (hidden) mediator as Wisdom. This shows that, unlike the idea of devekut, which necessitates the mediating images and activities of Logos, Philo also develops the Platonic-Jewish interpretation of the Deuteronomic conception of devekut into the idea of unio mystica, seemingly without a mediator or through a hidden mediator. This implies a critical difference between the vision through the Logos as a visualized and revealed mediator, and the “inner intuitive illumination” symbolized as transcendent Wisdom, which is a hidden mediator. Unlike the idea of devekut, which operates along with the angelic image of revealed and immanent Logos as an allegorical mediator, Philo’s idea of unio mystica implicitly operates, along with a God like image of transcendent Wisdom, as a hypostatic mediator symbolized by divine light, which is invisible and hidden, and thereby formulates a God-like image of Torah. This shows that rather than the general idea of devekut, the idea of unio mystica strongly appears to play a critical role not only in symbolically connecting the hypostatic notions and God, but also in correlating, mythically and symbolically, the hypostatic notions of Torah, human beings, and God. 2.2 In the Bahiric and Geronese Traditions On the basis of the examination of the existence of Philo’s ideas of devekut and unio mystica in the Second Temple period, I will try to prove the continuity and development of the idea of unio mystica, which is central in the formulation of the God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. It is first beneficial to recall that some evidence of mystical experiences (i.e., devekut and unio mystica) directed by the magic, theurgic, and ecstatic practices appear in relation to the letters of the divine names in the Torah as they commonly appear as the divine-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as shekhinah and Metatron, which are manifest in the late-antiquity and medieval Jewish mystical (Enochic, Hekhalot, and Hasidei Ashkenazi) literature, as well as the kabbalistic literature, as examined earlier.148 It is also crucial to note that Philo’s ideas of devekut and unio mystica show a striking similarity to Maimonides’ schema of eschatological noetic union, which was mainly based on the characteristics of Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian philosophies and theologies. The influence of Maimonides’ schema of eschatological noetic union appears not only critical in the philosophical schema (the conjunction with the Active 148 The combination of the magic, ecstatic, and theurgic features in Hekhalot literature (e.g., Hekhalot Rabbati 27–30) are also clearly found in the Abulafian and Gikatillian traditions, which I will discuss in great detail in this study.

A God-Like Image of Torah

291

Intellect or angelic beings) but was also influential on kabbalistic schema (conjunction with the sefirot or Godhead) in the medieval Jewish mystical traditions.149 This influence also appears to be essential to the development of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica to the divine-like images of Torah not only in the bahiric and Geronese traditions but also in the Abulafian, Zoharic, and Gikatillian traditions, which I will examine, in turn, in this study. In this context, I will further examine the evidence of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica in relation to the sefirotic and the dynamic relationships between God and the human soul (or intellect) in the bahiric and Geronese traditions. I will thereby reflect on the way in which these relationships dynamically formulate the God-like mages of Torah in the medieval Jewish mystical traditions. As noted earlier, the kabbalistic notion of unio mystica implies that union involves the process of integration into the sefirot or Godhead.150 Specifically, we can see that the ideas of devekut and unio mystica to the sefirot, and especially to the Tetragrammaton, appear in the process of worshiping during prayer in the thought of Jacob ben Sheshet and other thirteenth-century Geronese kabbalists.151 Ben Sheshet describes that the worshiper (e.g., Jacob) theurgically draws down the sefirot, from Ein-Sof to hesed, din, and tiferet, and eventually to shekhinah into a state of union, in accordance with what might be termed the “descent” position.152 In the descending process, the sefirotic unification (i.e., an intra-divine heiros gamos) between tiferet, the male element, and shekhinah, the female element, is achieved, and thereby the unity of the entire sefirotic system in shekhinah is theurgically completed by reciting the formula of prayer, “blessed be the name of the glory of his kingdom for eternity” (b. Pesaḥ. 56a).153 It is also notable that in the thought of ben Sheshet, the ideas of devekut and unio mystica are interlocked with the three divine 149 Afterman, And they Shall be One Flesh, 116. 150 Ibid., 121–22. 151 Jacob ben Sheshet, “Sefer ha-ʾEmunah veha-Bitahon,” in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban, ed. Charles B. Chavel (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967), 2:393–99, 340–41. Sheshet exemplifies a contrast between the “descent” and “ascent” positions during worship by describing the following cases: The patriarch Jacob reflects the “descent” position and Moses reflects the “ascent” position. 152 Ibid. This formula appears in a similar context in R. Ezra of Gerona, “Commentary on the Song of Songs,” in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban, 477. 153 In a manner similar to ben Sheshet, in sec. 60 of the Bahir, the “descent” position entails the visionary experience of the three sefirot of hesed, din, and tiferet, which can be identified with the divine chariot. See Abrams, ed., The Book Bahir, sec. 60. In this sense, Scholem asserts that the “descent” position in an early redactional layer of the Bahir appears to be related to the visionary mysticism of the merkavah mystics, such as in Hekhalot literature. See Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 129–30.

292

Chapter 4

names: YHWH, Elohim, and YHWH, which are pronounced in the opening line of the shemaʿ prayer (Dt 6:4).154 As Mark B. Sendor explains, the movement of “descent” appears to be appropriate to these forms of prayer, which bring the sefirot into the human mind, i.e., psychologizing the sefirot.155 On the other hand, in a manner similar to the “ascent” position of sec. 60 of the Bahir, ben Sheshet explicates the “ascent” position, exemplified through the case of Moses, who is already in a state of conjunction (i.e., devekut) with shekhinah, and therefrom draws and unifies all the sefirot upward to Ein-Sof. In so doing, Moses’s mind appears to move into a state of unio mystica.156 In this context, Dauber elucidates the exegetical implications of “running and returning” (Ezek 1:14), which allude to “specific mystical praxes during prayer” in relation to the “ascent” and “descent” positions.157 In this regard, Dauber further elaborates the features of the idea of devekut to the sefirot by analyzing related passages, such as sec. 32 of the Bahir, which refers to the verses “what 154 Ben Sheshet, “Sefer ha-ʾEmunah ve-ha-Bittahon,” 2:340–41. For ben Sheshet, in the descending order, the first name of Dt 6:4 (YHWH = the Tetragrammaton) is the divine essence (ʿetsem), which is identified with the first sefirah, keter or Ein Sof. In contrast, in the ascending order, the third name (YHWH) is the divine essence. The “descent” position begins with Ein-Sof, and moves, along with ḥokhmah, down to binah and tiferet in correspondence to the three mentions of the divine names (i.e., ‫ֹלהינּו יְ הוָ ה‬ ֵ ‫יְ הוָ ה ֱא‬, YHWH Eloheinu YHWH) in the shemaʿ prayer. In the descending order, the first name YHWH is identified with the divine essence, the second YHWH designates tiferet (or rahamim), and Elohim designates hesed and din. In the descending direction of prayer, the first Tetragrammaton is “a reference to the highest sefirah,” while the second Tetragrammaton designates the divine chariot or the seven sefirot below binah, which becomes “a lookout from which a mediated vision of the highest sefirot is possible.” See Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 226, 234. Cf. Idel, KNP, 141–43; Wolfson, “Negative Theology and Positive Assertion in the Early Kabbalah,” Daʿat 32/33 (1994): v–xxii. A similar form is also found in R. Asher’s Sefer ha-Yihud, 75, 80. 155 Sendor, “The Emergence of Provençal Kabbalah: Rabbi Isaac the Blind’s Commentary on Sefer Yeẓirah,” (Volumes I and II) PhD diss. Harvard University, 1994), 1:246–61; idem, 2:25 (English translation). 156 Jacob ben Sheshet, “Sefer ha-ʾEmunah ve-ha-Bittahon,” 2: 393–99; 340–41. Cf. Azriel of Gerona, Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, 61a (pp. 118–19). Pedaya assumes that the “ascent” position of the Bahir is that of its later layer of Provencal redactor, whose approach is shared by R. Isaac’s circles. See Pedaya, “The Provencal Stratum in the Redaction of Sefer ha-Bahir,” 154–55. The “ascent” position implies that the process of unification of the divine through the recitation of shemaʿ prayer moves “from below to above” i.e., from the lower sefirot to the higher ones in the sefirotic realm. This shows a conflict between the “ascent” position in its later layer of Provencal Stratum and Nahmanides and ben Belimah’s “descent” position. Interestingly, in this section of the Bahir, knowledge (daʿat), which generally refers to tiferet or the seven lower sefirot in early kabbalistic texts, is profoundly correlated with and replaced by the merkavah imagery. 157 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 228–29.

A God-Like Image of Torah

293

is more wondrous [mufla] than you, do not inquire; what is hidden from you do not investigate [tahkor]” and “Peer at what is permitted to you, and you have no dealings in the hidden things,” (Sir 3:21–22), as well as to a passage in R. Azriel’s Commentary of Sefer Yetsirah, according to which “you must peer (le-hitbonen) from the revealed to the concealed.”158 On the basis of these passages, it becomes clear that a holistic understanding of ḥokhmah and binah is impossible. In the idiom of Sirach, you should not inquire about what is “wondrous,” i.e., the sefirah of ḥokhmah, nor investigate that which is “hidden,” i.e., the sefirah of binah. However, there remains the possibility of gaining some insight into the lower seven sefirot beneath binah  – again in the idiom of Sirach, you can “peer” (hitbonen) at that which is permitted. Yet, the peering (le-hitbonen) at the mythic images of the revealed, i.e., the lower seven sefirot, can offer a glance of the concealed, i.e., the upper three sefirot.159 Dauber further explains that the visionary experience of the mythic (or anthropomorphic) descriptions of the matrix of the sefirotic symbols brings out “a mediated glimpse of [divine] thought,” despite the impossibility of a direct “lookout” to the divine essence.160 This substantiates that the lower seven sefirot below binah appear in a comprehensible visual image, whereas the upper three sefirot, which appear in a non-visual image, are not clearly comprehensible. In this process, despite the impossibility of actual knowledge of the highest sefirot (e.g., keter, ḥokhmah, and binah), the mythic and anthropomorphic conceptions and themes serve as a hermeneutic apparatus which allows for the investigation of the lower seven sefirot, such as hesed, din, and tiferet, and eventually for an ultimate state of unio mystica of the human soul through the immediacy of the divine. On the basis of this analysis, Dauber further exemplifies the ideal of devekut (i.e., unio mystica) through explaining the mode of “shigionot” (‫ ִׁשגְ י ֹנֹות‬, Hab 3:1) in a prayer of the prophet Habakkuk, mentioned in sec. 46 (a late redactional 158 Ibid.; Azriel, Perush le-Sefer Yesirah, in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban, 1:3 (453–54); Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 129–30; Reshit ha-Kabbalah ve-Sefer ha-Bahir, 246, 283–85. The Bahir implies, according to Scholem, a new kind of speculative mysticism that moves beyond the visionary kind used by merkavah mystics. 159 Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 279–80, 289. 160 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 224–25, 230–31. As Dauber explains, in the bahiric and Geronese tradition, the “descent” view is generally directed to an investigation of the divine chariot in a visualized (i.e., mythic, and anthropomorphic) image, which is limited to the sefirot below binah, especially hesed, din, and tiferet. The “ascent” view and direction are directed to a mystical experience in the “pure (or divine) thought” mediated by the mythic imageries by the sefirotic symbolism for the upper three sefirot in a non-visual image.

294

Chapter 4

layer) of the Bahir.161 He notes that “shigionot” is explained by the term “tishge” (‫) ִת ְשגֶ ה‬, which means “infatuated” (Prov 5:19), implying a “transformation of worldly pleasures into an eroticized ecstatic experience (i.e., a state of devekut) of the shekhinah.”162 This also demonstrates that the mythic descriptions of the gendered and hypostasized sefirot allow us not only to speak of the ineffable but also to attempt to reach a state of devekut or unio mystica between the human soul and the divine. This eventually implies the ultimate goal of the unio mystica to the highest sefirot through devekut to the shekhinah and later ḥokhmah.163 In a manner similar to the Bahiric tradition, the possibility of an utmost mystical experience (i.e., unio mystica) of participating in the divine unity of the concealed (the upper three sefirot) appears to be intensified through a spiritual and theurgical prayer in the Geronese tradition.164 As examined earlier, R. Ezra and R. Azriel develop a specific tradition centered on the second sefirah, ḥokhmah in relation to the term ‫( אמון‬or ‫(אמן‬ in Prov 8:30.165 Dauber analyzes, from the poem of the Meshullem da Piera, the anti-Maimonidean kabbalist and poet, R. Erza and R. Azriel’s kabbalistic

161 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 166–67. 162 Ibid.; Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 270–317; Idel, KNP, 42–56; idem, “Asceticism and Eroticism in Medieval Jewish Philosophical and Mystical Exegesis of the Song of Songs,” With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, ed. Jane Dammen McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003), 93; idem, “Eunuchs Who Keep the Sabbath: Becoming Male and the Ascetic Ideal in Thirteenth-Century Jewish Mysticism,” Becoming Male in the Middle Ages, ed. Jeffrey J. Cohen and B. Wheeler (New York: Garland, 1997), 151–85; Pedaya, “Possessed by Speech: Towards an Understanding of the Prophetic-Ecstatic Pattern among Early Kabbalists,” Tarbiz 65.4 (1996): 565–636 (Hebrew); Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 227–32. 163 It is also reminiscent of the images of ḥokhmah in a mythic sense in sec. 90 of the Bahir. As also noted earlier, R. Asher explains that through the river that flows from Eden (i.e., ḥokhmah) to the garden (i.e., binah), the tree (i.e., tiferet) is planted in the garden, which is not separate from ḥokhmah and Ein Sof. In light of this kabbalistic symbolism, R. Asher implies that the “garden of Eden” esoterically refers to the union of binah and ḥokhmah, which are not separated from Ein Sof. See Asher ben David, “Sefer ha-Yihud,” in His Complete Works and Studies in His Kabbalistic Thought, 75–76, 106. The mechanism of devekut implicitly appears in a two-fold (upper and lower) conception of ḥokhmah. This also corroborates that the lower ḥokhmah is identified with the shekhinah (as a visible kavod) of God and symbolically as “daughter of the king.” 164 Idel, KNP, 42–49; E. Wolfson, “Hebraic and Hellenic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir,” 153–54; idem, Through a Speculum that Shines, 160–87; idem, “God, the Demiurge, and the Intellect,” 77–111. 165 Azriel of Gerona, Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth, 41b (p. 82).

A God-Like Image of Torah

295

understanding of divine unity centered on the ḥokhmah‬.166 Meshullam’s poetic description implies that the sefirah of ḥokhmah can only be understandable and accessible by “suckling” after the model of an infant suckling from the breasts of its mother, which implies a mystical experience. This shows that the concept of ḥokhmah appears as an object of devekut, as underlined earlier.167 This also demonstrates that the idea of devekut to the ḥokhmah, including the higher sefirot in the Geronese tradition, shows a tendency going towards a state of unio mystica to the ḥokhmah, which is in proximity to the Ein Sof, and thereby covers a linguistic infinity and divine-like image of Torah. In all, this shows that the Bahiric circles and most Geronese kabbalists have a special interest in the relationship between the divine entities and divine essence, on one hand, and the concepts and images of Torah, on the other. This substantiates that, in the bahiric and Geronese traditions, the mystical experiences and consciousness of the Jewish mystics are primarily focused on the investigation of the secrets of the divine unity of the sefirot comprised of the hypostatic notions of Torah. This also shows that the sefirotic system for the Jewish mystics eventually became a critical mediator for experiencing God and expressing the dynamic relationships between God and the human soul (or intellect). The images of the upper three sefirot appear close to the Ein Sof, which is transcendent, wonderous, hidden, and incomprehensible. Specifically, the image of ḥokhmah appears as a God-like image of Torah, which conveys the mystical conceptions of the Torah as a divine name and as a living organism. This substantiates that the God-like image of ḥokhmah in the bahiric and Geronese traditions plays a critical role not only in promoting the idea of devekut understood as a state of unio mystica, i.e., a mystical and absorptive union, but also in formulating the God-like image of Torah. 2.3 In the Abulafian Tradition As investigated earlier, Abulafia, in ʾOẓar ʿEden Ganuz, teaches how to unify the divine names so as to create the gradual process of devekut, which attaches the human soul to the Active Intellect.168 According to Abulafia, the 166 Dauber, “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbala,” 73–75; Hayim Brody, “Shire Meshulam ben Shelomo Dapiera,” Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem 4 (1938): 92. In poem 40, II. 37–39: “For me Ezra, And Azriel are a help. They place traditions in my hands. They give me knowledge And teach me wisdom (‫)חכמה‬, And they suckled me from the breasts of a nurturer (‫)אמן‬. With one heart (‫)אחד בלב‬, We relate to the unified One (‫)אנחנו במיוחד‬.” 167 Scholem, “Devekut, or Communion with God,” in The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality (New York: Schocken, 1971), 203–27. 168 Abulafia, ʾOẓar ʿEden Ganuz, 111–12, 129–35.

296

Chapter 4

letter-combination of the divine names brings about a prophetic vision, i.e., maʿaseh merkavah, and eventually leads to a state of conjunction (devekut) or noetic union with the Active Intellect.169 Abulafia specifically establishes the identity between the Active Intellect and the divine names, such as Metatron, Yahoʾel,170 and shekhinah, in his Sefer Sitrei Torah, a commentary on The Guide of the Perplexed. In the same work, he also describes the human intellect’s intellectualizing process on the road to conjunction.171 As examined earlier, the images of Metatron and shekhinah, which combine the mystical and philosophical concepts of Torah, were developed in Hekhalot and Ashkenazi literature, as were secrets of the divine names. Abulafia further explains that the human intellect can connect to the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron, shekhinah, and Yahoʾel, which explicitly appear as transcendent or God-like images, through the process of unio mystica, i.e., the intellectualizing process of the human intellect, and thereby become ontically identified with the Active Intellect.172 It is also crucial to note that Abulafia’s philosophically inclined idea of unio mystica is essentially applied to a conception, which identifies the Tetragram­ maton with the divine essence.173 Abulafia appears to intellectualize and psychologize the sefirot in human “pure thought,” unlike the contemplative and 169 Idel, KNP, 42–49. Abulafia describes his “science of letter combination” as the “account of the chariot” (‫ )מרכבה‬and claims that it eventually leads to the attainment of prophetic ability. The prophecy brings the esoteric wisdom of the Merkavah, which is generated by knowledge of the combinations and permutations of the divine names. 170 Ibid., 67–69. The name Yahoʾel contains ‫יה‬, as an abbreviation of the Tetragrammaton YHWH. Scholem notes that the name Yahoʾel appears in Jewish gnostic literature dating to the end of second century. See Scholem, Major Trends, 69; idem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 89. In the Apocalypse of Abraham, the angel Yahoʾel appears as the spiritual teacher of Abraham, who teaches him about the Throne of Glory. His image is similar to that of Metatron in the Hekhalot literature and Ashkenazi literature. Cf. George H. Box, and Joseph I. Landsman, The Apocalypse of Abraham (London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918), Introduction, xxv; Odeberg, Introduction to 3 Enoch, 189. The angel Yahoʾel is a metamorphosis of the patriarch Enoch. 171 Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 132b. In order to explain the intellectualizing process of the human intellect, Abulafia describes the relationship between angelic concepts (e.g., Metatron, the Agent [Active] Intellect, divine [faithful] Spirit, and shekhinah), and the divine names (e.g., Yahoʾel, Shadday, and Elohim). 172 R. Azriel also involves the Active Intellect with the God-like images of the first sefirah, keter, and the Throne of Glory as well as to the image of pre-existent Torah. See Azriel, Kabbalistic Works of R. Azriel of Girona, fols. 90–98. 173 Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, 27; idem, “Zohar and Eros,” Alpayyim 9 (1994): 71–72. The esoteric nature of the highest sefirot in the Geronese tradition, as previously examined, also appear in the Abulafia’s approach to the letters of the divine names as revealing and concealing the secrets of Torah.

A God-Like Image of Torah

297

theosophical conceptions focused on the divine unity in the supernal “pure thought” in the Geronese tradition.174 The Abulafian tradition appears to place more focus on devekut to the divine names, especially the Tetragrammaton, in the human pure thought than it does on the devekut to the sefirot in the supernal pure thought (i.e., the sefirah of ḥokhmah) as in the Geronese tradition.175 The idea of noetic union, from the philosophic perspective, appropriated in the Abulafian tradition, is radicalized insofar as the climax of the experience is mystical ecstasy, which involves direct contact between the human soul and divine, i.e., Godhead itself. This experience is brought about through linguistic techniques of manipulating the letters of the Torah, especially the letters of the Tetragrammaton.176 However, it is notable that while accomplishing the ultimate task of devekut to the letters of the Tetragrammaton in a philosophic sense, Abulafia implicitly formulates the conception of unio mystica employed by theosophic kabbalists, who are usually thought to represent an opposing stream of kabbalah. In Sefer Sitrei Torah, we can see that Abulafia describes intellectual perfection through the Active Intellect as a precondition to knowledge of the Tetragrammaton, which is identified with the divine essence, and is implicitly related to the sefirot.177 This shows that Abulafia eventually prioritizes the kabbalistic ideal of the unio mystica to the Tetragrammaton over the philosophical ideal of the conjunction (i.e., devekut) with the Active Intellect.178 Abulafia’s idea of unio mystica can be found in the idea of unio mystica of R. Isaac of Acre, who was his student.179 R. Isaac of Acre was an eclectic kabbalist, who mixes philosophical vocabularies and symbolic images, in his descriptions of mystical union with the Tetragrammaton. R. Isaac’s idea of unio mystica means the absorption (but not annihilation) and incorporation of the human soul (or intellect) into a psychological and spiritual structure of divine realms, and eventually the immortality of the human soul.180 In Meʾirat ʿEinayim, R. Isaac schematizes a process of the mystical path by highlighting 174 Idel, KNP, 55–57; In the Abulafian tradition, human pure thought parallels supernal pure thought, the sefirah of keter. Cf. Altmann, Faces of Judaism ed. A. Shapira (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1983), 87–88. 175 Idel, KNP, 55–57. 176 Ibid., 106–7, 112. 177 Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 163a. 178 Wolfson, Abraham Abulafia, 72. 179 Idel, KNP, 306. 180 See Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre, Sefer Meʾirat ʿEinayim, ed. Amos Goldreich (Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984), 222–23. R. Isaac describes the process of unio mystica in the descending order, i.e., from the Divine Intellect [‫ ]השכל האלוהי‬to the Active Intellect, and then from the Active Intellect to the Acquired Intellect [‫]השכל הנקנה‬,

298

Chapter 4

the conjunction between the human soul (‫ )נפש‬and the Active Intellect [‫השכל‬ ‫ ]הפועל‬through the idea of devekut, and eventually the human soul’s identification between the human soul and the Active Intellect, and finally the human soul’s identification with the Divine Intellect.181 In particular, for R. Isaac, the Divine Intellect implicitly appears to be associated with the Tetragrammaton and with Ein Sof, i.e., God.182 This shows that by utilizing both the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect and the Divine intellect and the knowledge of the sefirot, R. Isaac and Abulafia appear to identify the Active Intellect (and the Divine Intellect) with Torah, whose inner essence is the Tetragrammaton, and, in turn, with God.183 By this logic, R. Isaac further describes the human soul, which combined with the Divine Intellect, as an anthropomorphic image, such as a “divine man” [‫ ]אלהים האיש‬or a ẓaddik who attaches to the Tetragrammaton and Torah.184 This shows not only Abulafia’s philosophical (i.e., Neo-Aristotelian and Neoplatonic) influences on R. Isaac of Acre, but also the ultimate interest and goal of devekut of Abulafia which was a radical identification between the human soul (or intellect) with the Active Intellect and even God (i.e., unio mystica).185 This also substantiates that both R. Isaac of Acre and Abulafia formulate the angelic and God images of Torah by using the letters of the Tetragrammaton, which are implicitly related to the sefirot, as an apparatus for the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica. It is beneficial to note that Idel provides critical insight into the features of devekut and unio mystica, which appear in the Geronese and Abulafian traditions through the explanations of the relation between devekut and theurgy. Idel discusses the theurgical features of liturgical prayer in the Geronese tradition by explaining the shared theurgical implications of the Temple sacrifices and the devekut to the divine names following the rabbinic rhetoric of substitution.186 This implies that the theurgical acts encompass not only the kabbalistic worship and prayers for the unification of the sefirot with a and to the Agent Intellect [‫]השכל המתפעל‬, and finally from the Agent Intellect to the human soul. 181 Ibid., 244–45. 182 Ibid., 224–27. 183 Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” 106–8. Both of the two kinds of Kabbalah (ecstatic and theosophic) basically share the perspective that the divine names are “a symbol of the divine structure” (106). 184 Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre, Sefer Meʾirat ʿEinayim, 223. 185 Abulafia’s idea of unio mystica unquestionably gave a huge impact on the formation of prophetic Kabbalah. See Eitan P. Fishbane, As Light Before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 278–79. 186 Idel, KNP, 55–56.

A God-Like Image of Torah

299

theocentric emphasis, but also the devekut to the divine names, especially the Tetragrammaton, with a meditative and psychological emphasis. In this sense, even if Abulafia did not exercise overtly theurgical acts, his use of meditative and psychological features of the devekut and unio mystica to the letters of the Tetragrammaton implicitly convey a theurgical aspect in the kabbalistic worship and prayers. In this context, Idel provides a clear summary of the ultimate features of kabbalistic worship and prayers in a theurgical sense that applied to the theosophical kabbalists and to some extent to Abulafian tradition: “1) the primary cleaving of thought to the letters of the Divine Name (= the Tetragrammaton); 2) the activation of these letters as symbols of higher entities so as to constitute a unified totality; 3) cleaving to this unified divine totality.”187 This explanation implies that the ideas of devekut and unio mystica to the letters of the Tetragrammaton has a causative relationship to the unification of the sefirot in ḥokhmah through the theurgical effect of the human soul’s liturgical (i.e., shemaʿ) prayer.188 The process of devekut regarding the divine names of Torah progresses to the process of the devekut that theurgically unifies the sefirot, a process which moves forward to the process of the devekut unifying the sefirot, which begins with unifying the lower seven sefirot and then ends up unifying the upper three sefirot.189 Through this process, the worshiper eventually moves forward to be a participant or to be absorbed in a unified divine totality (i.e., a state of the unio mystica to the sefirotic system) through the theurgical worship and prayers.190 This demonstrates that the devekut to 187 Idel, KNP, 56. Idel regards the unio mystica through the prayer, in Geronese Kabbalah, as an “inner mental processes,” i.e., “an interiorization of the Divine,” which activates “the divine powers by means of their reflections in human thought.” 188 Idel, KNP, 53–55, 297, n. 117; idem, “The Sefirot above the Sefirot,” 278–80; Scholem, Reshit ha-Kabbalah, 73–74. The idea of devekut to the Tetragrammaton is achieved by the restoration and unification of the sefirot through theurgical intention during the recitation of liturgical prayer. 189 Idel, “The Sefirot above the Sefirot,” 278–80. 190 Idel, KNP, 297, n. 117. As Idel notes, in an anonymous text, which appears to originate from the Geronese school, devekut to the Tetragrammaton occurs after the unity of the sefirot is achieved in the “pure thought” of the worshiper as a result of a liturgical prayer: “And the righteous and the pious men, and those people who seek solitude and unite the Great Name, grab hold of the fire on the altar of their hearts. Then in his pure thought (mahshavah tehorah) all the sefirot will be united, and they will be tied one to another so that they extend until the spring of the flame whose exaltation is endless. And this is the secret of all of Israel cleaving to God, may He be blessed: “to recite your mercies in the morning and your faith at night” (Ps 92:3). This is the secret of the unity [effected by] a man in his morning and evening prayer, when he raises all the sefirot into one bundle and unifies them. Then he cleaves to the great name [= Tetragrammaton].”

300

Chapter 4

the Tetragrammaton, which is the climax of the devekut and unio mystica, appears as a starting point of the devekut which ultimately leads to reaching the state of unio mystica in the theosophic and kabbalistic system. In other words, to further elaborate on this process, the first stage of devekut involves the visual and imaginative comprehension of the immediate and direct presence of God through the letters of the Tetragrammaton. The second stage moves, beyond envisioning the imaginative and visualized forms of God, to a convergent with the sefirot now depicted in a linguistic symbolism. Finally, the worshipers reach an absorptive participation (i.e., unio mystica) in the sefirot as non-sensual or non-visual entities that are accessed through a symbolic meditation. Above all, this substantiates that a God-like image of Torah is implicitly formulated as a symbolic or hidden mediator which connects God and human beings in the process of unio mystica to the sefirot and the letters of the divine names and the Tetragrammaton as divine essence. 2.4 In the Zoharic and Gikatillian Traditions In the Zohar, the dualistic conception of Torah, i.e., the Torah of the Tree of Knowledge (Good and Evil) and Torah of the Tree of Life, symbolically reflects the images of Torah as a mediator and interconnector between visible and invisible entities in relation to the sefirotic system.191 As Tishby notes, in the Zohar, there are three levels of Torah, which are linked to the development of Torah: the preexistent Torah, the written Torah, and the oral Torah, which represent ḥokhmah, tiferet, and malkhut, respectively.192 As instances of the Zohar’s symbolic terminology, the sefirah tiferet is identified with the Tree of Life, while the sefirah malkhut is identified with the Tree of Knowledge.193 Interestingly, the Tree of Knowledge (Good and Evil) appears to be related to the image of shekhinah (or malkhut) and Metatron, which combines an angelic and divine-like image of Torah.194 This feature in Zoharic sources, including Raʿya Mehemna and Tikkunei Zohar, is reminiscent of the dualistic conception of Metatron and shekhinah, which convey both the angelic and divine-like 191 See Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1102–3. It is also notable that in Pirke d’R Eliezer (ch. 14, 14a. ii), “the Tree of Life signifies only the Torah” (cf. Prov 3:18; Tg. Neof. to Gen 2:15). See Gerald Friedlander, trans., Pirke de Rabbi Eliezer, 2nd ed. (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1965), 85. 192 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1079. 193 Ibid. 194 See Zohar Ḥadash (Tikkunim), ed. Reuven Margalioth (Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964), 106d–107a. This differentiates the levels of the Tree of Knowledge (related to lower shekhinah or Metatron) and the Tree of Life (related to higher shekhinah) in the intention (kavvanah) of the worshipers. See Sefer ha-Zohar I. 126b.

A God-Like Image of Torah

301

images of Torah as in the late antique Jewish mystical literature and early kabbalistic literature.195 Unlike the dualistic conception of the images of the Tree of Knowledge, the image of the Tree of Life, which is identified with the sefirah tiferet, clearly reflects the divine-like image of Torah, related to the higher of the two forms of shekhinah in the dual-shekhinah concept examined above.196 As Tishby notes, unlike the lower shekhinah, the higher shekhinah in the Zohar appears to be identical to the second sefirah, ḥokhmah.197 In this sense, the image of the Tree of Life appears to be related to a divine-like image of tiferet along with that of ḥokhmah, which is identified with preexistent Torah, as the highest level of Torah.198 By this logic, the image of Tree of Life also appears to have a profound nexus with the God-like image of ḥokhmah, which is identified with that of personified Wisdom (Prov 8:22–31), as examined earlier.199 The image of the Tree of Life related to the ḥokhmah, which is in the closest proximity to God, is connected not only to the ḥokhmah as a hidden point (i.e., yod), the first letter of the Tetragrammaton, but also to the concept of primordial or preexistent Torah (e.g., Gen. Rab. i, 1), which eventually takes on a God-like image of Torah. Importantly, Tishby explains that the secrets of the Torah of the Tree of Life (which is identified with the Torah of emanation) are implicitly reflected in the sefirot as divine entities and divine names, which encompass the whole Torah.200 In the Zohar, the Torah is explicitly identified with the letters of the Divine Name (e.g., Sefer ha-Zohar II. 87b; III. 80b).201 As Tishby notes that 195 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1106. See Sefer ha-Zohar II. 118b–119a: (Raya Mehemna); Sefer ha-Zohar I. 21a; III. 226b, 228b. The images of shekhinah in the Zohar, which convey aggadic and kabbalistic features, also play a critical role not only in controlling the system of the creatures, wheels, and powers of the merkavah, but also appear as an anthropomorphic figure, who sits upon the Throne of Glory described as the upper chariot. 196 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:589; 1105–6; Sefer ha-Zohar II. 65b–66b. 197 Sefer ha-Zohar I. 35b; III. 4b, 267b. 198 Sefer ha-Zohar I. 145a, 248b. The Torah appears as “the wisdom of God” and “pure thought” or hidden Thought. The sod in pardes is identified with the shekhinah and ḥokhmah, but remez, peshat, and derush are connected with sitra ahra. 199 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1:270, 342–43. The ḥokhmah in the Zohar conveys a dualistic conception: supernal and transcendent Wisdom, and lesser Wisdom intrinsic within the supernal Wisdom. 200 Ibid., 3:1102–7, 1079–80. Cf. Gen. Rab. i, 1. See also Sefer Zohar Ḥadash, Tikkunim, 106d. R. Simeon b. Yoḥai notes a division between a man of the Tree of Knowledge and a man of the Tree of Life. This implies there are two levels of the Torah: the Torah of creation, and the Torah of emanation. The Torah of emanation is “the Tree of Life,” and “the spiritual-mystical Torah,” as well as “Torah of truth.” 201 Scholem, “The Meaning of Torah in Jewish Mysticism,” 41–42, notes that “the same statement recurs in the writings of several members of this Geronese group, and was finally

302

Chapter 4

“the Torah is the embodiment of the divine order of things, which is comprised in the name of the divine essence,” i.e., the Tetragrammaton.202 It is beneficial to note that in a manner similar to the images of Torah in ʾOr Zaruʿa, as examined earlier, which combines the mythic and philosophic features, the letters of the Tetragrammaton are implicitly intertwined with the images of the sefirot and merkavah. This implies that the symbolic and mythic images of the Tree of Knowledge and the Tree of Life are profoundly intertwined with the images of the sefirot and the letters of the Tetragrammaton. In this context, Idel notes that there are complex ideas of the devekut to the sefirot and the letters of the Tetragrammaton in the Torah, which are formulated through mythic and anthropomorphic strategies in the Zohar.203 In this sense, Tishby first recognizes that it is difficult to systematically investigate the multiple usages of the verb forms of devekut (e.g., ‫ אדבק‬or ‫ )אתדבק‬and their implications of devekut and unio mystica in the Zohar.204 Notwithstanding their complicated implications, for Tishby, devekut alludes to both an intimate relation and a direct contact, i.e., unio mystica.205 Ronit Meroz describes a polychromatic view of the idea of unio mystica in the Zohar on the basis of her theory of multiple authorship of the Zohar by multiple circles.206 Wolfson also discusses a range of the meanings of unio mystica in the Zohar by taken over by the author of the Zohar, the classical text of Spanish Kabbalism … I assume that this new idea was well known to Nahmanides himself, but he refrained from expressing it in a work intended for the general public … The Torah was essentially nothing but the one great Name of God was certainly a daring statement calling for comment  … The Torah as the Name of God means that God has expressed His transcendental being through it.” See also Afterman, op. cit., 218–21. 202 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1080. 203 Idel, “Types of Redemptive Activities in the Middle Ages,” 269–73; Wolfson, Venturing Beyond. Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 8. 204 See also Isaiah Tishby, “Fear, Love, and Devekut in the Teaching of the Zohar,” Molad 19.151–152 (1961): 50–55 (Hebrew). Joshua Abelson, Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction to the Kabbalah (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981), 123. Abelson suggests a relationship between itdabaq (‫אתדבק‬, Zohar II. 216b) which he renders as “comes into union” and a mystical union. 205 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1010. 206 Ronit Meroz, “The Weaving of a Myth: An Analysis of Two Stories in the Zohar,” in vol. 2 of Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought, ed. Howard Kreisel (Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006), 167–205. Meroz exemplifies a contradictory notion of devekut in the narrative of a dispute between R. Yose and R. Abba. Melila Hellner-Eshed also claims that the sense of unio mystica implies either just “an experience of participation rather than unification,” or a “complete merging with the divinity through ecstatic death.” See Melila Hellner-Eshed, A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar, trans. Nathan Wolski (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009), 295, 312. Regarding the multiple authorship of the Zohar by multiple circles, See Meroz,

A God-Like Image of Torah

303

analyzing variations of the motif of unification across the Zohar. He does so despite the lack of concrete vocabularies of unio mystica in the language of the Zoharic sources.207 He eventually suggests a “triadic” dimension of unio mystica in the Zohar that combines theory and praxis: ontological (i.e., theosophic) infra-structure, ecstatic (and theurgic) experience, and hermeneutical attitude in the Zoharic homilies, while taking an intermediate position which synthesizes the competing views of unio mystica in the Zohar.208 It is first clear that, as Idel notes, in a manner very similar to Abulafia’s conception of the unio mystica, the idea of devekut in the Zohar appears to convey a sense of noetic union (e.g., an ecstatic path of the devekut to the letters of the Torah) based on Aristotelian epistemology and Neoplatonic ontology.209 In addition, the devekut to the Tetragrammaton in the Zohar is profoundly related to the sefirot, in a manner similar to the Geronese and Abulafian traditions, on the basis of mythic and anthropomorphic strategies.210 As Wolfson further notes, in the Zohar, there are theological and ecstatic elements, i.e., “speculative devices for expressing the knowable aspect of God” and “practical means for achieving a state of ecstasy, that is, an experience of immediacy with God that may eventuate in union or communion.”211 In this context, Afterman tries to explain this intricate feature of devekut and unio mystica in the Zohar as “somewhat milder” than in, more philosophically inclined works, like those of Abulafia’s works, de Leon’s ʾOr Zaruʿa, and Gikatilla’s Ginnat ʾEgoz.212 In a manner similar to the ways of devekut and unio mystica in the Geronese tradition, in the Zohar, the “initial integration” of the divine realm (i.e., sefirotic system), which enables “the divine essence to dwell within the human vessel” (i.e., human soul), serves as “the pre-condition for human participation in the unitive dynamics within the Godhead.”213 As Afterman notes, like the Geronese tradition, the Zohar appears to presuppose

Headwaters of the Zohar: Analysis and Annotated Critical Edition of Parashat Exodus of the Zohar (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2019), 39–119. 207 Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 330, 357, 361, 364–67, 376, 386. 208 Ibid., 331, 357, 361. This “triadic” dimension effectively explains the identification of God and the Torah as the divine names in relation to the sefirotic system. 209 Wolfson, “Poetic Thinking,” in vol. 11 of Library of Contemporary Jewish Philosophers, ed. Hava Tirosh-Samuelson and Aaron W. Hughes (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 75–78. 210 Idel, “The Concept of the Torah in Hekhalot Literature and Kabbalah,” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 75, n. 122. 211 Wolfson, “Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience,” 210. 212 Afterman, op. cit., 189–90; Idel, KNP, 61. 213 Afterman, And They Shall be One Flesh, 206–7. Afterman (109) notes that in the Zohar, “the distinction between the divine and the human realms” does not appear as a “clear cut,” insofar as the human soul participates in “this process of union and unity.”

304

Chapter 4

the state of devekut to the sefirah of shekhinah, as a precondition for the theurgical actions, and then moves forward to the eventual unio mystica, which is achieved by completing the self-perfection of the human soul “below,” and the unity of the sefirot “above.”214 Lachter also elaborates that the human imagination, in the context of a theurgical prayer, i.e., the devekut to the divine names in the letters of the Torah, explicitly shapes a mystical experience (i.e., unio mystica).215 Liebes also notes that the unio mystica, as an ideal of devekut to the sefirotic system, is completely achieved by theurgical actions (e.g., Dt 28:9).216 This implies that the idea of unio mystica in the Zohar pursues a convergence of the opposites of ontological and experiential dimensions through theosophic, ecstatic, and theurgic approaches.217 This demonstrates that the Zohar conveys a dualistic feature of unio mystica, i.e., a “meditation” on the letters of the Torah as a living organism, which contains the divine and hidden light of God, and a theurgical prayer through “imagination,” i.e., visual and non-visual comprehension of the mythic and anthropomorphic images in the human mind or consciousness.218 Specifically, Lachter also emphasizes that the ideas of devekut and unio mystica in the Zohar are still focused not only on the secret of divine inner unity within the Godhead but also on the intensive participation and integration of the human soul into the divine unity through mythic and anthropomorphic strategies.219 As Wolfson notes, the imaginative nature of these mythic strategies plays a critical role in formulating the images of Torah as a symbolic mediator, which bridges between the human structure and anthropomorphic structure of the divine, and thereby plays a critical role in uniting the divine and human realms and in enhancing the relationship between them.220 On the basis of this theory, Idel explains that devekut is eventually accomplished 214 Ibid., 139–41. 215 Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution, 139. 216 Liebes, in “The Messiah of the Zohar,” 175–81, also includes, in a dualistic conception of unio mystica in the Zohar, the significance of the unio mystica as a mystical experience of the devekut to the Divine Name (e.g., Dt 10:20). 217 Idel, KNP, 58; Wolfson, Venturing Beyond, 192. 218 Idel, “Types of Redemptive Activities in the Middle Ages,” 269–73. Idel notes that the state of devekut in the Zohar is eventually directed to the state of unio mystica between the divine unity and the human soul (or intellect). 219 Lachter, Kabbalistic Revolution: Reimagining Judaism in Medieval Spain (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2014), 114. 220 Wolfson, Poetic Thinking, 78. Wolfson also analyzes that the mythic (or poetic), theosophic, and linguistic symbolism of the Zohar can be primarily described as a mystical midrash, which draws on ancient biblical and rabbinic ideas. See also Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 304.

A God-Like Image of Torah

305

by the concept of imitatio dei, insofar as it is based the resemblance between human beings and the divine entities, through the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies.221 Idel clarifies the significance of hermeneutic (mythic and symbolic) strategies in the Zohar not only for expounding upon “the structural relation of the human body to the supernal image in the sefirot,” but also for understanding the symbolic similarities of the activities of the human beings and divine entities.222 Abrams also points out, the reality of unio mystica manifest in the Zohar appears in the praxis of a mythic and gendered (i.e., an erotic coupling) union through sefirotic symbolism.223 As Wolfson also notes, the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies based on sefirotic symbolism utilize polar opposites made by the gendered schemes and ultimately leads to an ontic assimilation into the divine unity.224 He explains that the process of unification in the state of devekut ultimately overcomes metaphysical boundaries made by the gendered schemes based on the mythic and anthropomorphic images of God, which are formulated by the imagination and visual apprehension. In all, whatever the precise type of unio mystica in the Zohar, the analysis of these scholars primarily corroborates that a linguistic and sefirotic symbolism plays a critical role in the unitive process, intimately interconnecting the divine and the human realms through the idea of devekut. As noted earlier, the angelic and divine-like images of the sefirot and the letters of the Tetragrammaton in the Zohar appears as an object of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica that lead the human souls to the ideal of human perfection. This examination shows that the idea of devekut in the Zohar results in the climax of unio mystica through the angelic image of Torah as a visible mediator and the God-like image of Torah as an invisible mediator through a hermeneutical strategy. This corroborates that, in the context of unio mystica, a God-like image of Torah appears as an invisible and hidden mediator in the symbolic images of the sefirot and the letters of the Tetragrammaton, which are formulated through the anthropomorphic and mythic strategies. Interestingly, the Abulafian and Zoharic traditions regarding the ideas of devekut and unio mystica are combined in the thought of the thirteenth-century kabbalist Gikatilla, who dynamically developed the philosophical, kabbalistic, 221 Idel, “Types of Redemptive Activities in the Middle Ages,” 269–73. 222 Idel, KNP, 56. 223 Daniel Abrams, Ten Psychoanalytic Aphorisms on Kabbalah (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011), 23, 48. 224 Wolfson, Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature (Oxford: Oneworld, 2007), 112–14. The mythic and gendered (i.e., coupling) strategy in the Zohar reveals not only the secrets of creation and existence but also the various aspects of unitive experience.

306

Chapter 4

and Zoharic traditions. Scholem sees, in Gikatilla’s works, a possibility of encountering and reconciling three different kabbalistic streams: that of R. Ezra, R. Azriel, and Nahmanides, that of Abulafia’s ecstatic kabbalah, and that of the Zoharic kabbalah of Moses de Leon.225 Scholem and Wolfson also explain that Gikatilla’s conception of unio mystica in Shaʿarei ʾOrah is primarily grounded in a linguistic mysticism, which combines and integrates literary features of the Maimonidean, Abulafian, and Zoharic sources – three streams that intersected in the dynamic culture of Castile at the end of the thirteenth century.226 It is notable that in a manner similar to both the Abulafian and Zoharic theories, Gikatilla pursues the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica through the theurgical focus, the psychologization of the sefirot, while demystifying the kabbalistic ontology inherent in the sefirotic system.227 It is also critical to note that in Gikatilla’s works, the combination of the letters (i.e., the divine names) in the Torah focuses on the sefirotic symbolism with the aim of investigating the mysteries of creation and cosmology. In Ginnat ʾEgoz, Gikatilla’s use of gematriot aims at not only understanding the mysteries of merkavah imagery and angelic worlds but also at achieving the ideal of devekut, as in Abulafia’s system. In Ginnat ʾEgoz, Gikatilla seems to follow Abulafian methodology of making frequent use of the device of gematria. The character of letter combination (tzerufei otiyyot) in Ginnat ʾEgoz appears as a recombination of the divine names through gematriot, like the methods of Abulafia. By contrast, the letter combination in Shaʿarei ʾOrah appears to be more emphasized as part of a broader hermeneutical system of the gematriot, i.e., combining the prophetic and theosophical aspects, and revealing the secrets of the Torah through a sefirotic symbolism.228 On the basis of this linguistic conception, Gikatilla’s Shaʿarei ʾOrah further elaborates the relationships of the divine names to the merkavah imagery, which appear in various mythic images and anthropomorphic expressions, as examined earlier. As Huss notes, unlike the philosophical and allegorical approaches in Ginnat ʾEgoz, in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, the images of God and Torah 225 Scholem, Origin of the Kabbalah, 57–61. See also Morlok, Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics, 28–38; Idel, KNP, 211–13. 226 Scholem, Major Trends, 194; Wolfson, “Letter Symbolism,” 195–236. See also Idel, “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn,” Revue De Métaphysique Et De Morale 4 (1998): 495–528. 227 Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, fol. 52d, 54b. Cf. Idel, KNP, 56–61, 146–53. In Ginnat ʾEgoz, he also shows particular interest in the numerical relationship between the divine names and philosophical concepts concerning the laws of the nature. 228 Morlok (38–56, 77–79) emphasizes a hermeneutical difference between in Ginnat ʾEgoz and Shaʿarei ʾOrah with regard to the linguistic techniques: letter combination and gematriot for the unio mystica.

A God-Like Image of Torah

307

are described in the mythic and anthropomorphic expressions through the sefirotic symbolism.229 It is beneficial to recall that in the Zohar, the shekhinah appears as a God-like image who is a spiritual “emissary” of divinity. There is, therefore, in the Zohar, a blurring of the border between the sefirot and God through the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies.230 In the Zohar (e.g., Sefer ha-Zohar II. 22b, 51a), the image of shekhinah, which is a reference to the lower ḥokhmah, is a female connected in the sexual union to the image of higher ḥokhmah, through the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies. In a manner similar to the Zohar, the God-like image of ḥokhmah in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, which appears in its relationship with the Tetragrammaton as the divine essence, is a reverberation of the God-like image of personified Wisdom, which possesses the closest proximity to God, and also formulates the God-like image of primordial Torah.231 In Shaʿarei ʾOrah, the image of higher ḥokhmah in the sefirotic system appears to play a critical role and function as a hidden mediator, which has utmost proximity to Ein Sof. The God-like image of ḥokhmah also embraces the other sefirot, while connecting them to the Ein Sof, who is not enclosed within the sefirotic system. Specifically, the image of ḥokhmah is expressed through a “light-metaphor” in which the ḥokhmah is divine light for the sefirot, which flows from the essence of Ein Sof.232 This “light-metaphor” is a reverberation of Philo’s idea of unio mystica, as highlighted earlier. Specifically, this shows that Gikatilla explicitly formulates a God-like image of higher ḥokhmah through linguistic and sefirotic symbols, such as “light” and “primordial point,” and yod in the Tetragrammaton.233 By this logic, Gikatilla creates a God-like image of Torah, expressed sefirotically as ḥokhmah and binah, which is connected in closest proximity to Ein Sof. The God-like image of ḥokhmah is a reverberation of the God-like image of personified Wisdom, which possesses the closest proximity to God, and

229 Huss, “Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Definition of Symbolism,” 157–76. 230 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1:379. 231 Idel, Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, 40–41; Scholem, Major Trends, 173. The conception of the “primordial point,” i.e., ḥokhmah appears in Gikatilla’s writings and in the Zoharic sources and is linked with the primordial Torah conceived as the wisdom of God in Prov 8. 232 Scholem, Major Trends, 225–28, 261, 265–66, 271–72. This “light-metaphor” is also applied to the metaphor of the sexual union of the sefirot – in particular, the male yesod and the female shekhinah or malkhut. 233 The second sefirah, ḥokhmah, is derived from the first sefirah, keter, which is endlessly connected to Ein Sof. See also Shaʿarei ʾOrah, Introduction, 5, 49–50, 136; Gikatilla, Ginnat ʾEgoz, 158, 360, 330.

308

Chapter 4

eventually formulates the God-like image of primordial Torah.234 This shows that Gikatilla, in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, creates the God-like image of Torah as a hidden and esoteric mediator between God and human beings through a particular hermeneutic methodology, combining the biblical and kabbalistic interpretations, which elucidate the relationship between the Tetragrammaton, as the divine essence, and the concept of ḥokhmah. In a manner similar to the Zohar, Gikatilla also creates similarity and intimacy between the concepts of the highest sefirot (binah, ḥokhmah, and keter) and the letters (of the Tetragrammaton) in the Torah through the symbolic natures of language. In particular, the images of ḥokhmah are theosophically associated with the God-like image of Torah in a dialectic mechanism of the “hidden” and “revealed” of the Torah. In all, as examined earlier, in similar ways with the Geronese and Zoharic traditions, we can see that Gikatilla primarily weighs in on the significance of an ultimate restoration of the divine entities (i.e., in the second sefirah, ḥokhmah, which embraces all other sefirot and Ein Sof) through the sefirotic symbolism. In a manner similar to the idea of unio mystica in the Zohar, Gikatilla moves forward to elaborate his own method of unio mystica by utilizing the mythic and anthropomorphic themes based on the sefirotic symbolism.235 On the basis of his conception of unio mystica, Gikatilla, in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, actively creates the God-like image of Torah through a particular hermeneutic strategy utilizing the myth and anthropomorphic themes and combining the biblical and kabbalistic interpretations. The God-like images of Torah, in the image of ḥokhmah and the letters of the Tetragrammaton, play a critical role as a hidden and esoteric mediator between God and human beings for the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mysitca through the sefirotic symbolism. 3

Critical Findings and Implications

This examination shows that the dualistic conceptions of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, which contain both the angelic and God-like images within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions, were continued, in various forms, from the Second Temple and later rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. The primitive forms of unio mystica seen in 234 Idel, Language, Torah, and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia, 40–41; Scholem, Major Trends, 173. The conception of the “primordial point,” i.e., ḥokhmah appears in Gikatilla’s writings and the Zoharic sources and is linked with the primordial Torah conceived as the Wisdom of God in Prov 8. 235 Dauber, Standing on the Heads of Philosophers, 300.

A God-Like Image of Torah

309

Philo’s two conceptions of unio mystica – visio dei, as a “direct mystical vision” of God and “reflection” of “intuitive illumination,” an indirect experience of the divine transcendence, are explicitly interlocked with the various types of unio mystica that were dynamically developed in the medieval Jewish mystical tradition. Specifically, we have seen that the features of unio mystica are profoundly related to the formulation of the God-like images of Torah, which are manifest in the kabbalistic (Geronese, Abulafian, Zoharic, and Gikatillian) traditions. In the Geronese tradition, as examined earlier, the dynamic relationships and interactions between the three higher sefirot (keter, ḥokhmah, and binah) are significantly related to the three main hypostatic notions: Torah, Wisdom, and Logos, as they were manifest within the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered traditions dynamically developed since the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. This also illuminates that the secrets of the sefirotic system and the hidden divine essence beyond human knowledge are esoterically expressed through mythic and anthropomorphic descriptions generated by the theosophic imagination of the early and thirteenth-century kabbalists.236 Above all, as noted earlier, the ideas of devekut and unio mystica, in the Bahiric and Geronese traditions, prioritize a theosophic (i.e., inner-divine) union of the Godhead in the process of the unification of the sefirot over the participation and absorption of the human soul with the Godhead (i.e., the devekut and unio mystica). This also shows how the sefirotic system for the Jewish mystics became a critical mediator for experiencing God and how the idea of unio mystica operates along with the sefirotic system in the mystical experiences and consciousness of the kabbalists. In all, this corroborates that the ideas of devekut and unio mystica operate along with a hermeneutic strategy creating the dynamic interactions of the hypostatic notions of Torah in relation to the sefirot of shekhinah and ḥokhmah and thereby formulating the God-like images of Torah. By contrast, Abulafia appears to choose a different way of conceiving the idea of unio mystica by explaining the dynamic mechanism of the sefirot and the mystical experiences of unio mystica by mapping and internalizing them into a human inner (i.e., psychological, and mental) system on the basis of the philosophical system. However, in a manner different from the angelic image of Torah in relation to the merkavah imagery, Abulafia creates the way of achieving a state of unio mystica through the ecstatic merkavah visions which occur as a result of letter combination (tzerufei otiyyot) of the Tetragrammaton. Abulafia thereby creates and formulates a God-like image of Torah in relation 236 Scholem, Origin of the Kabbalah, 129–30.

310

Chapter 4

to the Tetragrammaton against the backdrop of the radical ideas of devekut and unio mystica, i.e., in the process of psychologizing the sefirot in human “pure thought,” which facilitates the formation of ontic continuum that is formed between the human soul (intellect) and the Active Intellect, which is, in turn, identified with Torah. Nonetheless, for Abulafia’s system based on the Maimonidean thought, in accordance with the theological dictum of the biblical text, “for my thoughts are not your thoughts” (Isa 55:8), a theological and ontological distinction between God and humanity appears to be still assumed and maintained, even in the state of unio mystica.237 However, the Zohar and Gikatilla appear to pursue a state of unio mystica by blurring the boundary between the human soul (or intellect) and the infinite divine (i.e., Ein Sof) through an intense inner mystical experience. This conception specifically appears in connection with a linguistic symbolism, which formulates the God-like images of Torah. The main common point in the Geronese, Abulafia, Zoharic, and Gikatillian traditions is that they discussed the ideas of unio mystica to the Tetragrammaton and the highest sefirot, with a focus on the ḥokhmah, while explicating the dynamics of the divine essence. Abulafia’s philosophically oriented conception of the idea of unio mystica, which mainly investigates the divine realms from a philosophic perspective, appears to be advanced by the mythic and linguistic features in the Zohar and Gikatilla’s works. The linguistic and symbolic features in the Zohar, which seems to combine the Geronese and Abulafian traditions, focus on the devekut to the letters of the Tetragrammaton and the devekut to the sefirotic divine unity. In particular, the mythic and symbolic strategies in the Zohar appear in the God-like images of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as shekhinah and ḥokhmah in the sefirot, which were dynamically formulated by a hermeneutical mechanism of devekut and unio mystica in a philosophic and kabbalistic ethos. The idea of unio mystica in the Geronese kabbalists, described earlier, implicitly appears through theurgical prayers in the process of devekut to the letters of Torah (i.e., the Tetragrammaton) and in the process of the human soul participating in the divine unity in the sefirot. In a manner different from the Geronese tradition, the idea of unio mystica in the Zohar conveys a sense of unitive experiences which includes visual comprehension of the immediacy of the divine presence in a mythic and anthropomorphic image, 237 Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 192b; As Rachel Elior, in The Mystical Origins of Hasidism, trans. Shalom Carmy (Oxford; Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006), 81–82, notes, the necessity of a mediator between God and human beings emphasizes divine transcendence.

A God-Like Image of Torah

311

especially in the letters of the Tetragrammaton through kabbalistic symbolism. The Zohar actively utilizes mythic and anthropomorphic conceptions and themes to investigate the lower seven sefirot, such as hesed, din, and tiferet, through sefirotic symbolism, due to the impossibility of knowledge of the highest sefirot (i.e., keter, ḥokhmah, and binah). Furthermore, as seen earlier in the Zohar, the goals of the mythic descriptions of the gendered and hypostasized sefirot are implicitly focused on reaching a state of unio mystica through the devekut to the letters of the Tetragrammaton. In this process, the images of the Tetragrammaton in the letters of Torah related to the sefirotic system substantiates a God-like image of Torah, which is formulated by the exegetic (i.e., mythic) strategies along with the idea of unio mystica. Gikatilla further conceptualizes the image of Torah as a God-like linguistic entity, which manifests in the letters of the Tetragrammaton.238 Specifically, in Gikatilla’s Shaʿarei ʾOrah and the Zoharic tradition, the image of ḥokhmah is an inaccessible entity and is interchangeable with God Himself, hidden in the letters of the Torah, which appears to be associated with a God-like image of Torah. By this logic, the God-like image of Torah symbolized in the images of ḥokhmah comes to the fore through the ideas of devekut and unio mystica to the sefirot and the letters of the divine names of the Torah by means of linguistic and sefirotic symbolism, which connects the infinite natures of the language of the Torah to God.239 Gikatilla emphasizes the process of combining the eternal nature and power of language with the ecstatic (i.e., philosophic) and theosophic elements in a broader hermeneutic system which formulates the God-like image of Torah through the idea of unio mystica. By this logic, Gikatilla does not appear to follow the apophatic theology that was the core of Maimonidean thought, while investigating the concept of divine unity and the ideas of devekut and unio mystica in a different sense from the Maimonidean and Abulafian traditions. Through this process of unio mystica, even the boundary between God and the human soul appears to be gradually blurred by a linguistic and sefirotic symbolism. Strictly speaking, the boundaries between the hypostatic notions of Torah and God disappear, but the God-like image of Torah reemerges as a symbolic and hidden mediator, who is closest to God Himself. This corroborates that the idea of unio mystica primarily functions in the formative process of the God-like images of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the shekhinah and ḥokhmah, which are the closest proximity to God Himself, through the exegetic (i.e., mythic and anthropomorphic) strategies, which are manifest within the Geronese, Zoharic, and 238 Afterman, op. cit., 160; Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 7–11. 239 Isaiah Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 3:1080, 1086.

312

Chapter 4

Gikatillian traditions. This further substantiates that the idea of unio mystica offers a critical insight not only into the interpretative and hermeneutic methodology of religious experiences, but also on the process of formulating the God-like image of Torah mainly manifest through this history of Jewish mystical thought. Consequently, this examination demonstrates that the appearance of the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah within the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions is a phenomenological reverberation of the angelic and God-like images of Torah, which were manifest in the Wisdom-centered tradition during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. This also substantiates the relationship of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica to the formulations and interpretations of the angelic and God-like images of Torah, which were dynamically developed in the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions reflected in the Geronese, Abulafian, Zoharic, and Gikatillian traditions.

Chapter 5

A Messianic Image of Torah in the Jewish Philosophic and Mystical Tradition The previous examination shows that the messianic images of Torah in Second Temple period and rabbinic sources appear in combination and dynamic interactions with the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos, memra, and shekhinah. In this context, I now will try to show the continuity and development of the messianic images of Torah which are intertwined with the angelic and God-like images into the features of the messianic images of Torah manifest in the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. It is notable that unlike Scholem, who weighs the historical element as a causal one in the formation of messianic ideas, Idel argues that it leads him to centralize the apocalyptic form of Jewish messianism and neglect individualistic and inner-spiritual forms as a deviation of Jewish messianism.1 Scholem, in this sense, describes messianism as a type of “diachronic monochromatism,” and as a “collective phenomenon,” that comprises “the national, historical, and geographical elements of redemption” and generates transformation in a “dialectical continuity.”2 Idel also acknowledges that, relative to the images of messianic figures in apocalyptic literature, metaphysical and theological perspectives on the messianic figures are limited in rabbinic literature, including the Mishnah Talmud, and targums.3 Idel, however, offers a different opinion 1 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 30–35; Siegmund Hurwitz, “Some Psychological Aspects of the Messianic Idea in Judaism,” in The Well-Tended Tree; Essays into the Spirit of Our Time, ed. Hilde Kirsch (New York: Putnam, 1971), 130–33. For instance, Scholem sees the Spanish expulsion (1492) as a causal factor for the emergence of the Lurianic kabbalah, which later directly influenced the movement of Sabbatai Zevi (1626–1676), who further developed the concepts of “exile” (galut) and messianic redemption in the Middle Ages. In this sense, Scholem posits a linear historical development of messianism, according to which the false messiahs Zevi and Jacob Frank, emerged after the Spanish expulsion, whereas in pre‑Spanish expulsion kabbalah there was indifference to messianism. See Scholem, The Messianic Idea of Judaism, 194. 2 Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, viii, 2; Amos Funkenstein, “Gershom Scholem: Charisma, Kairos and the Messianic Dialectic,” History and Memory 4 (1992): 123–39. 3 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 30–35; Lawrence Schiffman, “The Concept of the Messiah in Second Temple and Rabbinic Literature,” Review and Expositor (1984): 235–46; Anthony J. Saldarini, “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature,” CBQ (1975): 348–58; Baruch M. Bokser, “Messianism,

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_008

314

Chapter 5

regarding the relationship between historical context and messianic tendencies. He comprehensively examines certain philosophical and mystical models of messianism, which were rejected due to the prejudices of leading scholars, such as Scholem. This allows him to show new and different paradigms of Jewish mystical messianism.4 Indeed, Idel shows that the revelatory and mystical experiences of Jewish messianic characters should be critically considered on their own terms, even as they interact with history. Similarly, Talmon states that “the spiritual dimension of Jewish messianism continued to manifest itself in historical realism and societal factuality.”5 This implies that the apocalyptic features in the early Jewish sources were implicitly continued in the eschatological and spiritualized (e.g., soteriological) discussions in later Jewish messianism and became as a critical messianic element in the Jewish mystical tradition. In this sense, Idel explores the multiple interconnections between messianic ideas and other historical, intellectual, and spiritual environments.6 By this logic, Idel suggests a triadic model, which intertwines history, messianism, and Jewish mysticism, while emphasizing the interaction of the three spheres in the history of Jewish mysticism. This type of analysis can provide us critical insight into the messianic features of the various texts. Scholem emphasizes the radical divergences between the Jewish and Christian forms of messianism while prioritizing the apocalyptic component of Jewish messianism.7 Idel’s analysis suggests, by contrast, that the messianic ideas are intertwined with apocalyptic and spiritualized aspects, which dynamically appear, in varying measures, in the different types of messianism. As Idel notes, the messianic ideas and conceptions of thirteenthcentury kabbalists were developed into diverse topics, which can be organized according to various patterns and contexts and which are intertwined within

4 5 6 7

the Exodus Pattern, and Early Rabbinic Judaism,” in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, ed. James H. Charlesworth et al. (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992), 239–58; idem, “Changing Views of Passover and the Meaning of Redemption according to the Palestinian Talmud,” AJS Review 10.1 (1985): 1–18. Idel, Messianic Mystics, 30–35. Idel warns that one element should not be regarded in an overdetermined manner as the only significant feature in the formation of messianism. Talmon, “The Concept of the Messiah and Messianism in Early Judaism,” in The Messiah, 115. Idel, Messianic Mystics, 101. Idel considers both the spiritual and intellectual environments of the thirteenth century kabbalah. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 1–2, 15–16; Dan, “Gershom Scholem and Jewish Messianism,” in Gershom Scholem: The Man and His Work, ed. Paul Mendes-Flohr (Albany, NY: SUNY Press; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994): 73–86; Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought, 78–97.

A Messianic Image of Torah

315

different philosophical and kabbalistic conceptions and systems.8 This complexity demonstrates “the substantial integration of messianism within a variety of forms of Kabbalistic literature,” as well as “a dramatic diversification of the very concept of Kabbalah.”9 Idel categorizes three models of messianism: R. Isaac ben Jacob ha-Kohen’s mystical-apocalyptic model, Abulafia’s mystical-ecstatic model, and the Zohar’s mythical-theurgic model.10 Idel’s first exemplar of an acute (or apocalyptic) messianism is R. Isaac ben Jacob ha-Kohen, a Castilian kabbalist who was active in the middle of the thirteenth century.11 R. Isaac is reflective of a typical form of Jewish apocalyptic eschatology, which depicts historical catastrophe and an apocalyptic future. Following Idel’s categorization and panoramic approach, I will examine and compare the apocalyptic messianism with the two other types of messianism: Abulafia’s, and the Zohar’s. In this case, I will focus on select examples of the messianic images from these two models – Abulafia’s mystical-ecstatic model and the Zohar’s mythical-theurgic model – in order to show how the concrete features of the images of Torah, which intertwined with messianic conceptions. Specifically, I will discuss the combination and formulation of various messianic figures in relation to the angelic and God-like images of Torah within medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. 1

The Continuity of Messianic Images of Torah

It is notable that the messianic image of Torah, which are intertwined with the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, are based on the “proto-messianic” ideas and figures described in Second Temple Jewish sources, including the Hebrew Bible and the Wisdom literature, early Christian sources, and rabbinic literature. It is clear that the messianic images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah are intertwined with the various apocalyptic, allegorical, and symbolical depictions of messianic figures – part of an “unreconciled diversity” of different sources and groups with unique

8

Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 38–57. Cf. Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 326–92. 9 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 108. 10 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 41–42. Idel suggests three models of messianic phenomena in the biblical literature: 1) a present Messiah (a king, priest, or occasionally prophet); 2) an eschatological Messiah; 3) messianism, which implies “diffuse-redemption hope” without a historic and central figure. 11 Ibid., 35–57.

316

Chapter 5

historical and social contexts, such as Qumran texts, rabbinic literature, and Christian sources.12 It is critical to note that the dual conception of the hypostatic notions of Torah, i.e., the angelic and God-like images of the personified Wisdom figures in the Wisdom literature and Philo’s Logos, also have a messianic aspect and are related to conceptions of the Messiah and messianic era. From the interpretations of ‫ ָאמֹון‬in Prov 8:22–31, in which angelic and God-like images of Torah are intertwined, the messianic and salvific images of personified Wisdom and the Johannine Logos have two different versions: the first image is close to an angelic or son-like image of personified Wisdom (‫ ) ָאמֹון‬and is found in the Logos-centered tradition; the second image is close to a God-like image of personified Wisdom and is found in the Wisdomcentered tradition. The son-like or angelic image of personified Wisdom (e.g., Prov 8:22) is intertextually and semantically connected to, for instance, the images of “firstborn” (‫ ְּבכֹור‬, πρωτόγονον) and “the highest of the kings in the world” (,‫ֶע ְליֹון‬ ‫י־א ֶרץ‬ ָ ‫) ְל ַמ ְל ֵכ‬, who reflect King David promised by God (e.g., Ps 89:28). As can be seen in his exposition of “the image of God” in Opif., Philo’s Logos also demonstrates the dual conception of the messianic image, which is connected to both the angelic and God-like images of Torah.13 The first messianic concept of Philo’s Logos as an allegorical designator for the Law of Moses also appears as a political messianic figure in the Logos-centered tradition. As examined earlier, the images in Philo’s Logos convey not only the son-like image in conjunction with “first-born” and “king” images in Philo’s account of Logos as a being formed after the Image of God, but also the son-like image that foreshadows the “begotten” son of the Johannine Logos, i.e., Jesus (e.g., Jn 1:1–18). The “son of God” (i.e., divine sonship) appears in various forms, such as a specific messianic figure (mainly as a royal figure, such as king) or a collective concept of the children of Israel, a concept found in the Wisdom literature, the Qumran texts, and rabbinic literature. Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos, as son-like (or angelic) images of Torah, are reminiscent of multiple images (a priest, king, and prophet) of messianic figures in the Qumran texts (e.g., the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel in 1QS 9:11). These images also have eschatological and salvific implications in Qumran texts and rabbinic literature.14 These messianic figures appear as an angelic image of Torah as a visualized mediator, 12 13 14

Morton Smith, “What Is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures,” JBL 78 (1959): 66–72. Hecht, “Philo and Messiah,” 140, 158. Shemaryahu Talmon, “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanteers,” in Judaisms and Their Messiahs, ed. Jacob Neusner et al. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), 123–31; William M. Schniedewind, “King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism,” JJS 45.1 (1994): 71–78.

A Messianic Image of Torah

317

which bridges God and human beings. This shows that a conceptual interaction between various messianic forms (or figures) prominently appears in the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, and memra, since the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. In addition to the angelic image of Torah, as discussed earlier, the God-like image of Torah appears in the philosophical and mystical conceptions of various hypostatic notions that are found in Wisdom-centered tradition of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. These include personified Wisdom, shekhinah in the Wisdom literature, Philo’s Logos, Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels, the messianic figures in the Qumran texts, and the rabbinic literature. As examined earlier, the God-like and salvific image of Torah, which appeared in the interpretations of personified Wisdom as a sage or master in Prov 8 and 9, is related to the divine-like and salvific images of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels. The God-like and salvific images of personified Wisdom, which is in closest proximity to God in creation, also appear to be related to the images of the personified Wisdom figures in Sirach and Wisdom of Solomon (e.g., Wis 7:25–8:1), as well as the images of Philo’s Logos. As examined earlier, Philo’s dual conception of the Logos leads to two different messianic implications: a messianic figure close to an angelic image, and a messianic era related to a God-like image. This shows that unlike a historical and apocalyptic figure, the messianic figures, related to the Logos, appear as a mystical and eschatological image, which neutralizes the historical and political aspects of Jewish messianism. It is notable hat as Harry Wolfson implies, the divine-like image of Philo’s Logos appears as part of an abstract idea of a messianic era, which, through mystical symbolism, is esotericized and transformed into a de-historized, mystical, and spiritualized messianism.15 In this sense, Philo’s conception of the Logos as a messianic era neutralizes the political and apocalyptic sense of the messianic concept, while mitigating the tension between the present condition and an eschatological ideal. Nonetheless, this type of messianism still appears to be progressive in that the messianic era is consummated by a “world to come” or “kingdom of God” ruled by the teachings of Torah and by the redemptive activities of an abstract, mystified figure who symbolizes a God-like image of Torah. This shows that the dual eschatological concept of Philo’s Logos creates both the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah that are aligned with messianic ideas. This corroborates that Philo’s messianic concept of the Logos as a messianic era implicitly echoes a God-like image of Torah formulated through mystical symbolism. 15 H. Wolfson, Philo, 2:395.

318

Chapter 5

This messianic image of Torah, which is associated with the angelic and God-like images, is intertwined with both apocalyptic messianism and metaphysical and spiritualized messianism in the several genres of rabbinic literature, including the mishnaic and talmudic sources as well as targums and late-antique Jewish mystical literature. In the Mishnah and Talmud, messianic figures generally appear as apocalyptical in their functions and are connected to apocalyptic and eschatological events. For instance, the rabbinic concepts of the Messiah, exemplified by Bar Kokhba, are generally focused on the idea of a national redemption in an apocalyptic sense by a political figure, i.e., a Davidic descendent or king-messiah. This notion of the Messiah can be gleaned from talmudic and midrashic literature since Late Antiquity and later rabbinic periods.16 In Jewish and Christian traditions from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, two different (apocalyptic and eschatological) images of messianic figures emerge in depictions of hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos and Incarnate Logos (i.e., Jesus).17 As examined earlier, the “son” and “king” images of a messianic figure in the dualistic conception of Philo’s Logos appear to be convergent in an angelic image of the Logos. In addition, Philo conceptualizes a “man” as the Messiah, by connecting the notion of the Messiah to the son-like and angelic images of the Logos, which are identified with Torah.18 Philo’s conception of the Messiah as a “man” in relation to the images of the Logos is apparently reminiscent of “one like a man” in Dan 7:13 and similar expressions, such as the “scion of David” in the Hebrew Bible. It is notable that these expressions combine the son-like and salvific images.19 As most scholars agree, the messianic ideas found in the Gospels and the Book of Revelation (or the Apocalypse of John) appear to be directly or indirectly interacting with late antique Jewish (or Jewish-Christian) mystical apocalyptic traditions regarding the Son of Man.20 As analyzed earlier, a 16 Idel, Golem, 261; Yehuda Even-Shmuel, ed., Midreshei Geʾulah: Chapters in Jewish Apocalypse from the Closure of the Talmud until the Early Sixth Century (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954), 15–16. 17 Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2005), 348–55. 18 Savingnac, “Le Messianisme de Philon d’Alexandrie,” 319–24; Philo, Praem. xxix, 172; Conf. xiv, 63; Mos. II. vii, 44; II. li, 288; Opif. xxvi, 79–81. 19 Philo, Opif. xxvi. 79–81; Mos. II. i–vii, 1–44; Praem. xvi, 95–97; Sigmund Mowinckel, He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, c2005), 324, 333–35, 361. The son-like image of Philo’s Logos is connected to the motif of the Son of Man, which is also associated with Metatron and shekhinah, as shown earlier. 20 Mowinckel, He That Cometh, 347, 357–58. It is notable that the dual (apocalyptic and eschatological) conception of messianism, in late antique Jewish and Christian traditions,

A Messianic Image of Torah

319

messianic image of Jesus in the Gospel of John conveys both a son-like (and angelic) image and a salvific image as reflected in phrases like “the Son of God” (e.g., Jn 11:27, 20:31), and “the Son of Man” (e.g., Jn 12:34). These images of Jesus appear similar to the “son” and “king” images of the kingly messianic figure, that is, Davidic King-Messiah in the Qumran texts. In addition, it is notable that these images of Jesus and the messianic figures in the Qumran texts appear to be related to the angelic and salvific images of Metatron or Enoch, in a historical and apocalyptic sense, as found in talmudic and midrashic literature.21 For instance, in b. Ḥag. 14a, the identification of Rabbi Akiva himself with the Son of Man (e.g., Dan 7:13) as an angelic figure is also connected to the image of the Davidic Messiah. As Mowinckel explains, the identification between the Son of Man and Messiah in the targums, along with the interpretation of the “one like a man” and the Son of Man in Dan 7:13, are concatenated in various messianic figures, such as “the last descendent of David” in 1 Chr 3:24, as the ‘Cloud Man,’ and the Messiah-Son of Man.22 Furthermore, the images of the Son of Man combine an angelic and messianic image, such as Enoch, who is explicitly identified with Metatron and the Son of Man in 3 Enoch, as “one like a man” in Dan 7:13 and the Similitudes in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch (e.g., 1 En. xxxvii–lxxi), and as the “man” who “shall spring from the seed of David” in the Greek Apocalypse of Ezra (2 Esdras xiii, 3; xii, 32; cf. vii, 29; xiii, 25 ff).23 This shows a profound amalgamation among the Messiah, the son-like image of the Son of Man, and the angelic image of Metatron. This thereby substantiates that the messianic image of the Son of Man, who is identified with the angel Metatron, is a unique form, which conveys both an apocalyptic and allegorized conception, as shown in the messianic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah during the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. In contrast to the messianic image of the Son of Man, which appears close to an angelic image, we can also see, in late antique Jewish mystical literature, a conceptual change of the Son of Man, which appears in the Wisdom-centered mainly derives from the Persian, Hellenistic, and Gnostic influences. The image of Jesus as the Son of Man indicates a mediatorial role or mission for the Kingdom of God. This image is associated with several figures in as part of the account of the eschatological transformation in the Enoch-Metatron traditions, such as in the Similitudes in the Ethiopic Book of Enoch. 21 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 43–44. This messianic image in a historical and national sense appears to be later marginalized in the late Jewish mystical sources, such as 3 Enoch. See Gustaf Dalman, The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 256, 445. 22 Mowinckel, 360–61. 23 Ibid., 348–57.

320

Chapter 5

hypostatic notions of Torah, from a political or angelic figure to an incarnate and heavenly messianic figure, i.e., divine-human Messiah or a messianic era understood as an abstract eschatological concept. The image of the Son of Man not only refers to its pre-existence and eternality before creation, but also appears in the messianic conception of “the Ancient of Days” of Dan 7:9, understood in Enochic sources, such as 3 Enoch (Hebrew Apocalypse), as the God-like image of Metatron.24 As Mowinckel analyzes, sources, such as Gen. Rab. i. 4; ii, 4; Lev. Rab. xiv, 1, substantiate not only the pre-existence and eternality of the Messiah, who is identical with Metatron, but also his divine-like image as an indirect expression of God Himself.25 Importantly, the image of Metatron, which combines the messianic and God-like images, is related to the God-like image of shekhinah, as expressed in the Wisdom centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in the Second Temple, Tannaitic, and Enochic literature. The Son of Man, who existed (1 En. lxx, 1) “before the creation of the world and for evermore” (1 En. xlviii, 6), is not only described as a salvific figure who carries out “His purpose of eschatological judgment and salvation” (1 En. xlvi, 3; xlviii, 6), but also as a God-like image of the Son of Man who is a divine and heavenly Messiah (1 En. lv, 4; lxii; li, 3) sitting upon the Throne with the divine glory, who appears to be identified with the shekhinah.26 In addition to the angelic and salvific images of shekhinah as part of merkavah imagery in the mishnaic and talmudic sources previously examined, the shekhinah also has a salvific and God-like image that represents the divine presence and divine redemption. The image of shekhinah as identical to Metatron, as the Son of Man, not only appears as a messianic and God-like image but also has an eschatological implication for the ultimate redemption by her salvific activities (e.g., t. Kelim, B. Qam. i, 12). Furthermore, in the midrashic and Enochic literature, the image of Metatron (i.e., Enoch) as the Son of Man conveys not only a salvific function of “judgement and salvation” with the divine glory (shekhinah) (1 En. xlviii, 2–10; xli, 9), but also an eschatological vision (e.g., 2 Esdras xii, 32; xi, 36–45; xvi, 9; 2 Bar. lxxiv, 2; lxxvi, 2).27 24 25

26 27

Strack, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 334. Mowinckel, 323, 334. The Messiah was born and contemplated from the beginning of the creation of the world (Ps 122:17) in Gen. Rab. i, 1–4; John E. Goldingay, Daniel, Word Biblical Commentary, vol. 30 (Waco, TX: Word Books, 1989), 170. As Goldingay notes, the anointed as Daniel pictures him has a very transcendent dimension of a heavenly figure. Willy Staerk, Soter: die biblische Erlösererwartung als religionsgeschichtliches Problem; eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung I. Teil: Der biblische Christus (B.F.Ch.Th. II, 31) (North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: Gütersloh Bertelsmann, 1933), 516. Mowinckel, 358–59.

A Messianic Image of Torah

321

This examination provides critical insight into the conceptual changes and development from a historical and apocalyptic image in the talmudic sources into a spiritualized messianic image, which explicitly appears in a transition from late antique Jewish mystical traditions to the medieval kabbalistic traditions.28 In particular, the move from an angelic image of the Messiah to a God-like image demonstrates a dynamic, innovative, and polymorphous expression of divine presence and hiddenness that is formed through a particular exegetical and hermeneutical strategy (e.g., the complicated combination of the hypostatic and anthropomorphic descriptions of shekhinah and Metatron). However, it is also notable that in accordance with a historical and ideological context, the messianic figures in late Jewish apocalyptic literature, such as Sefer Zerubbavel, dynamically appear to return to a historical, political, apocalyptical, and redemptive image, rather than an individual, spiritualized, or psychological image.29 Nonetheless, in late antique Jewish mystical, late rabbinic, and early kabbalistic traditions, the messianic conception generally appears as de-historized, and the Messiah is personified and hypostatized as part of a trend of the ontologization of the Messiah in formulating the messianic ideas in late antique Jewish mystical, late rabbinic, and early kabbalistic traditions.30 The messianic images in the Hekhalot literature appear to intensify the features of a spiritualized and personalized (ethical and individual) redemption grounded in mystical experiences. A case in point is the story of R. Ishmael, in Hekhalot Rabbati, as he ascends to the divine chariot, and meets two Messiahs, and asks them for the divine eschatological plan.31 This story does not refer to an apocalyptic sense of messianism, but alludes to a personal and spiritualized redemption achieved through the mystical experience (i.e., apotheosis) of R. Ishmael’s “chariot” vision.32 This shows that the Hekhalot literature neutralizes the apocalyptic elements of older messianic views, and that there is a considerable conceptual change of the messianic images, which serve as a transitional point between an ancient and rabbinic messianic thought to a 28 Idel, Golem, 15–16. 29 Ibid. 30 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 46–47. The dual conception of Metatron in relation to the Logos, which I described earlier, plays a critical role in developing the apocalyptic and eschatological implications of messianic ideas in the Jewish mystical tradition. 31 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 48; Dan, Ancient Jewish Mysticism (Hebrew; Tel Aviv: Misrad haBitahon, 1989), 134–43; Schäfer, Synopse,  §§ 140–145. The notion of the ascension of the mystic on high where is holds a conversation with the Messiah and is even identified with the Messiah reappears in the works of Abulafia. 32 Idel, KNP, 79.

322

Chapter 5

medieval mystical messianic thought.33 It is notable that the messianic conceptions of shekhinah and Metatron in the Hekhalot and Hasidei Ashkenazi literature, which initially conveyed an angelic image of the divine countenance, also denote a messianic image spiritualized through the emanation from God in the inner process of “a divine continuum.”34 The images of Metatron, who is identified with Yahoʾel in the Ashkenazi literature, conveys the motif of the divine redemptive act of saving the Israelites from Egypt, and thereby bears a salvific and divine (hypostatic or God-like) image.35 This shows that the messianic image of Metatron-Yahoʾel in Hekhalot and Hasidei Ashkenazi literature implies a sense of personalized and spiritualized redemption and eschatology in place of an immediate national and apocalyptic redemption.36 It is also notable that these messianic features of Metatron, which are intertwined with the son-like, priestly, and salvific images, are reminiscent of the images of Philo’s Logos, as emphasized earlier.37 The priestly messianic image of Metatron-Yahoʾel in Sefer ha-Ḥesheq, entitled Commentary on Seventy Names of Metatron by R. Nehemiah ben Shlomo, implies a sense of personalized and 33 34 35

36

37

The ideological confrontation and fusion between rabbinic thought and philosophical approaches in the Middle Ages, therefore, led to a substantial transformation of messianic thought. Idel, Messianic Mystics, 46–50; Dan, “The Seventy Names of Metatron,” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16–21 (1981): 19–23 (Hebrew). Idel, Messianic Mystics, 46–50. Idel notes that the messianic images of Metatron are a combination of much older mythologoumena with some features of the thought of Hasidei Ashkenaz. As Idel and Wolfson argued, these examples of Metatron, in the Ashkenazi literature, are clearly reverberations of an ancient Jewish or ancient Jewish-Christian mythologoumenon related to the messianic ideas of a hypostatic and messianic figure. This demonstrates a phenomenological relationship between ancient sources and later Jewish mystical and kabbalistic (especially in Abulafia’s works) sources regarding the nexus between a hypostatic being and a messianic figure. See Idel, KNP, 30–34, 114–16; Wolfson, Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2012), 63–88. Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” 97–122. This feature reverberates in Abulafia’s mystical techniques of manipulating the divine names in the letters of the Torah as part of a messianic enterprise. See Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 13a; Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 16. As also noted earlier, the images of Metatron-Yahoʾel, in relation to the Divine Name in the thought of Abulafia enhance the messianic concepts and images, which are associated with the God-like images of Torah. See also Jarl E. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord, 81–82, 292–321; Scholem, Major Trends, 67–69; 87–90; Ivan G. Marcus, Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany (Leiden: Brill, 1981), 25, 29–35. Wolfson, Philo, 2:415; David Winston, Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria (Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985), 16, 42, 49–50.

A Messianic Image of Torah

323

spiritualized redemption and eschatology in place of an immediate national and apocalyptic redemption.38 Specifically, it is crucial to note that, as Idel points out, in the Ashkenazi literature, including Sefer ha-Ḥesheq, the messianic images of angelic figures, such as Elijah, Enoch, and Metatron, appear to be associated with the images of the ẓaddik (i.e., the righteous) and involve a religious experience and thereby a spiritualized redemption.39 These features in the Ashkenazi literature reverberate in a messianic image of Torah, which is intertwined with the angelic and God-like images of Torah, formulated by Abulafia’s mystical techniques of manipulating the divine names in the letters of the Torah, as underlined earlier.40 In all, this examination shows that like the forms of messianic figures and images that mainly appear in a philosophical Jewish messianism, these messianic concepts and figures explicitly appear in a spiritual (i.e., intellectual) and psychological form, one which was significantly influenced by the interpretations of Neoplatonic and Aristotelian Greek philosophies which penetrated into Jewish thought in the Middle Ages.41 The critical points of this examination are that the two types of messianic images, which are associated with an angelic image or a divine (or God-like) image of the hypostatic notions of Torah, are profoundly interlocked with the messianic ideas (e.g., historical or spiritualized).

38

See Sefer ha-Ḥesheq, ed., Y. M. Epstein (Lemberg: L. Kugel, Lewin. S., 1865), fols. 7b–8a: “YHWH WHYH, gematria Ben [= Son] because he was a [or the] son of man, [namely] Enoch ben Yared. And the Tetragrammaton is hinted at two times twenty-six and also the gematria of ʾEliyahu [is 52] also Yahoʾel … it is the prince of world, and in gematria it is ʾAna‌ʾ, because it is the High Priest and when the High Priest was pronouncing ʾAna‌ʾ he was first calling to the Prince of the Face, and this the meaning of ʾAna‌ʾ and only then he prays to the supreme Name.” See the English translation and explanations in Idel, Ben, 199. The messianic images of Metatron, who is identified with Enoch and Yahoʾel, appear in the explanations of their functions as a high priest, pronouncing the Tetragrammaton. Cf. b. Qidd. fol. 71a, 135. 39 Sefer ha-Ḥesheq, par. 18. fol. 3b; par. 8. 2a; par. 14. fol. 3a; Idel, Ben, 197–218; 646–47. 40 Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” 97–122. Abulafia and Gikatilla explain the presence and meaning of the Tetragrammaton through the affinity between the divine names and the names of angels, such as Metatron and Yahoʾel. See Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 13a; Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 16. Cf. Scholem, Major Trends, 87–90; Ivan Marcus, Piety and Society (Leiden: Brill, 1980), 25, 29–35. 41 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 51–53.

324 2

Chapter 5

Messianic Image of Torah Related to the Ideas of Devekut and Unio Mystica

2.1 In the Thought of Medieval Jewish Philosophers In order to further prove the continuity of the features of the messianic images of Torah and related messianic ideas, which are found in the Second Temple and late antique Jewish mystical literature, I selectively examine the fullfledged forms of the messianic images of Torah in the thought of medieval Jewish philosophers, such as Saadia Gaon, Ibn Gabirol, R. Abraham bar Hiyya, and Halevi and then delve into the messianic thought of Maimonides. In The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Saadia Gaon tries to present an apocalyptic approach based on his rationalist perspective, according to which true knowledge can be obtained from four roots: sense, intuition of the intellect, logical necessity, and authentic tradition.42 In Concerning the Redemption, Treatise VIII, Saadia describes the “world to come” as a new creation brought about by the entire transformation of the natural order in keeping with the scriptural descriptions:43 We are also informed by Scripture that all pestilence, diseases, and infirmity will disappear, and similarly sadness and sorrow. Their world will be one that is replete with joy and gladness, so that it will seem to them as though their heaven and their earth have been renewed for them. As for God’s statement: For as the new heavens (Isaiah 66:22), since it applies to the world to come, it must literally refer to the place and the environment that God is destined to create for His servants upon the annihilation of our present center and surroundings. This passage shows that Saadia Gaon justifies a specific apocalyptic tradition regarding the concepts of “world to come” and messianic era. Saadia also uses reason to justify apocalyptic elements, such as resurrection, in a physical and literal sense, as essential features of the messianic era. It is also notable that Saadia’s messianic and apocalyptic doctrine had a direct impact on bar Hiyya’s discussion of apocalyptic aspects in the messianic era.44 As Dov Schwartz notes, bar Hiyya shows a tension between apocalyptic 42 43 44

Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Introductory Treatise, v, 16–20 (pp. 20–26); Dov Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought (Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2017), 19–20. Saadia Gaon, The Book of Beliefs and Opinions, Treatise VIII. vi, 246 (p. 311). Abraham bar Hiyya, Sefer Megillat ha-Megalleh, ed. A. Poznanski and J. Guttmann (Berlin: Mekitsei Nirdamim, 1924), 48 (shaʿar 3).

A Messianic Image of Torah

325

tradition and individual redemption in the discussion of the immortality of the human soul.45 Thus, as Schwartz analyzes, this shows that bar Hiyya presents the idea of natural individual redemption, while not rejecting the apocalyptic messianic legacy.46 In addition, a less apocalyptic and more spiritualized view of redemption can be seen in the Bustan al-Ukal, composed by Natanʾel al-Fayyum in the twelfth century. This work describes the idea of the return of the human soul to the spiritual hypostasis emanated from God and adopts the idea of an individual and abstract immortality of the human soul.47 The works of bar Hiyya and al-Fayyum, accordingly, show not only the significance of Saadia’s messianic doctrine, in the messianic thought of Jewish thinkers in Spain and Provence, but also, simultaneously, reflect a phenomenon of gradual disengagement with, or even a rejection of, an apocalyptic approach within Jewish thought toward the end of the twelfth century. This more spiritualized messianic conception also appears to be profoundly related to Ibn Gabirol’s innovative messianic ideas: the liberation (i.e., redemption) of the human soul from the realm of corporeality on the basis of a Neoplatonic system.48 The emanation of the Active Intellect and its conjunction (devekut) with the human soul (or intellect), in a Neoplatonic sense, is related to an individual and spiritualized redemption of the soul and to an abstract conception of the messianic era. Interestingly, we also find a similar motif in Judah Halevi, who connects the messianic conception to the idea of devekut, achieved through the attainment of prophecy, as part of a spiritualized understanding of redemption. Halevi requires proper observance of the commandments of the Torah in the Land of Israel for the achievement of devekut (i.e., intellectual and halakhic perfection), as expounded in Kuzari I. 99.49 Halevi’s messianic conception, in this sense, conveys both an apocalyptic view and an individual redemptive view.50 Schwartz argues that these 45 46

Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought, 37–39. Ibid., 30–38. Like Saadia, bar Hiyya also supports some apocalyptic ideas, such as the eternal life of the body, the expansion of the Land of Israel over the entire world and so forth. 47 Nathanael Ben Fayyumi, The Bustan Al-ukul, ed. David Levine (Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009), 135–37. The human soul “will inhale holy forms and be attached to the universal soul, so that light will shine upon her … [as will] the essence of the Merciful One for immortality and perfect happiness to all eternity.” (135). 48 Idel, “Types of Redemptive Activities in the Middle Ages,” in Messianism and Eschatology: A Collection of Essays, ed. Z. Baras (Hebrew; Israel: Zalman Shazar Centre, 1984), 257–58. There is a phenomenological similarity between bar Hiyya, Bustan al-Ukul, and Gabirol’s Fons Vitae. The core theme of Gabirol’s Fons Vitae is the liberation of the human soul through conjunction with the Active Intellect emanating from God. 49 Halevi, Kuzari I. 99; III. 23, p. 162. 50 Ibid., I. 109 (pp. 75–77).

326

Chapter 5

features are reminiscent of the “messianic tension” between Saadia’s apocalyptic legacy and bar Hiyya’s individual redemptive messianism.51 On the basis of this understanding of prophecy, Halevi associates the theory of prophecy with the immortality of the soul after death as part of an individual spiritual redemption:52 Now all that our promises imply is that we shall become connected with the divine influence by means of prophecy, or something nearly approaching it, and also through our relation to the divine influence, as displayed to us in grand and awe-inspiring miracles. But how can they [the members of other religions] boast of expectations after death to those who enjoy the fulfilment already in life? Is not the nature of prophets and godly men nearer to immortality than the nature of him who never reached that degree? (Kuzari I. 109)53 Halevi explains that the immortality of the human soul appears as the result of the connection with spiritual and angelic beings (i.e., the Active Intellect) through the process of prophecy.54 This shows that Halevi’s messianic conception connects not only prophecy, understood as devekut, to an individual spiritual and intellectual redemption, but also associates it with the individual immortality of the soul. The evolutionary process of messianic conceptions which began in Saadia and continued in bar Hiyya and Halevi, is culminated in Maimonides’ messianic conception, which is expressed within both his exegetical and halakhic thought.55 It is notable that Maimonides’ messianic naturalism primarily challenges apocalyptic messianism and an apocalyptic Messiah, such as the one depicted in the Hebrew Apocalypse Sefer Zurubbavel (ca. 628) which supposes an apocalyptic catastrophe at the end of history and the recreation of the world.56 51 52

Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought, 48–50. Leo Strauss, “The Law of Reason in The Kuzari,” in Persecution and the Art of Writing (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952), 98–112. 53 Halevi, Kuzari I. 109 (pp. 75–77). 54 Barry S. Kogan, “Who Has Implanted within Us Eternal Life: Judah Halevi on Immortality and the Afterlife,” in Judaism and Modernity: The Religious Philosophy of David Hartman, ed. Jonathan W. Malino (Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2001), 473–95; Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought, 49–55. This recalls Maimonides’ notion that the “world to come” is achievable even in the present (Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 8:8). 55 Howard Kreisel, “Judah Halevi’s Influence on Maimonides: A Preliminary Appraisal,” Maimonidean Studies 2 (1991): 95–121. 56 Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought, 69–75. David Berger examines the origin and features of the typological (apocalyptic and eschatological) figures, such as

A Messianic Image of Torah

327

Maimonides transforms the apocalyptic prophecies and teachings in the scriptural and aggadic texts into a naturalistic messianic tradition by interpreting them allegorically.57 However, it is notable that Maimonides acknowledges historical messianism that does not convey an apocalyptic aspect, while still emphasizing spiritualized redemption.58 Maimonides theorizes the concept of ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ (i.e., the “world to come”), which will be available even in the present to philosophers as a result of achieving intellectual perfection through the acquisition of knowledge of God and Torah.59 At the same time, Maimonides’ messianic vision still has a political and national aspect, which eventually leads to the restoration of the dominance of a Davidic kingdom, under the maintenance of the “normal course” of the world and the fulfillment of the Torah in the gradual process of the messianic era.60 This shows that Maimonides integrates a political messianic ideal into an intellectual ideal of individual and spiritualized redemption in accordance with Aristotelian and Neoplatonic thought.61 In this vein, Maimonides associates the immortality of the soul with the substantiation of the intellect: the Messiah ben Joseph and Armilus in Sefer Zurubbavel. See Berger, “Three Typological Themes in Early Jewish Messianism: Messiah Son of Joseph, Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus,” AJS Review 10 (2): 141–64. 57 Schwartz, 69–75; Guide II. 29; Maimonides, Mishneh Torah (= The Code of Maimonides), The Book of Judges, The Book of Judges, vol. 14, trans. Abraham M. Hershman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949), The Laws of Kings and Wars (Hilkhot Melakhim) 11:1–4 (pp. 238–40); 12:1–2 (pp. 240–41). Maimonides neutralizes the apocalyptic element of the biblical stories of Gog and Magog (Ezek 38) and Elijah (Mal 3:23), and thereby emphasizes the “normal course” in the messianic era. 58 See the Laws of Repentance 8:2–3 (pp. 90a–90b); 9:2 (p. 92a) in Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge, vol. 1. ed. Moses Hyamson (Jerusalem: Boys Town, 1962). See also The Laws of Kings and Wars 12:4 (p. 242) in Mishneh Torah (= The Code of Maimonides), The Book of Judges, vol. 14, trans. Abraham M. Hershman (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949). Cf. Joshua Abelson, “Maimonides on the Jewish Creed,” JQR 19 (1906): 42–45, 55–56 (a translation of Maimonides’ introduction to Perek Helek in his Commentary on the Mishnah); Schwartz, Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought, 39–40. 59 This idea is developed into the idea of becoming a kind of metaphysical entity, i.e., an angel through the intellectual perfection achieved by the human intellect when united with the Active Intellect. Cf. Pines, Guide III. 51, pp. 623–28. 60 Abraham Nuriel, “Providence and Governance in Moreh ha-Nevukhim,” Tarbiz 49 (1980): 348–53 (Hebrew); Maimonides, Hilkhot Melakhim xi, 1–4. For Maimonides, the biblical descriptions of the days of the Messiah (e.g., Isa 11:6) must be interpreted in allegorical and metaphorical ways. The messianic era in Maimonides’ thought is a natural continuation of the natural order of the world. 61 Yoel L. Kraemer, “On Maimonides’ Messianic Posture,” in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 2, ed. Isadore Twersky (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984), 109–42. Otherwise, in the gradual process of the messianic era, Maimonides comprehensively envisions a progressive development of the messianic (i.e., eschatological) visions.

328

Chapter 5

Great perfection will appertain to him that lives in those days [the days of the messiah], and he will be elevated through it to the life of the world to come… [A] man whom no obstacle hinders from making the intellectual element in his soul live on after death. This is “the world to come.”62 In this passage, we can see a dynamic interaction between historical messianism and individual spiritualized (or intellectualized) messianism, which is found in Maimonides’ thought. Maimonides describes the immortality of the soul as the ultimate goal of knowledge of God and Torah, while explaining the intellectual process in the messianic era.63 Implied here is that Maimonides develops a naturalistic messianic model, e.g., in Hilkhot Melakhim (= The Laws of Kings and Wars) into the ultimate human perfection through the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect, i.e., the attainment of human intellectual perfection.64 Above all, Maimonides associates human intellectual perfection with the real intention of the Torah, while emphasizing the significance of continuous observance of the Torah in the messianic era, as noted in Guide II. 29 and in the Mishnah Torah (e.g., The Laws of Kings and Wars 11:1; 12:5).65 This implies, in Maimonides’s thought, a compatibility between practicing the commandments of the Torah and the achievement of intellectual perfection through the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect. In addition, Maimonides depicts the images of a historical Jewish messiah and the belief in his eventual coming in Judaism’s Thirteen Principles of Faith.66 Additionally, in the Laws of Kings and Wars 1:8, 11:4, and 12:5, Maimonides first describes the messianic and salvific figure, not only as a “warrior (savior)–Messiah,” who defends the nation and to fight the battles of the Lord, but In other words, even if he emphasizes a spiritualized and individualistic redemption, the ultimate purpose of his messianic vision moves toward a perfect society, which presumes a nationalistic redemption. For this reason, Maimonides embraces both Christianity and Islam as playing a functional role in spreading the knowledge of God. 62 Abelson, “Maimonides on the Jewish Creed,” 43, 45. 63 Pines, Guide II. 36; II. 45, Menachem Kellner, Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991), 33–47. 64 Isadore Twersky, Law and Philosophy: Perspectives on Maimonides’ Teaching, vol. 2 (Ramat-Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1992), 11–23. 65 See, in Mishneh Torah, The Laws of the Kings and Wars 11:1; 12:5. “In that era there will be neither hunger nor war, neither envy nor strife” (11:1). In the messianic age “all the ancient laws will be instituted … sacrifices will again be offered; the Sabbatical and Jubilee years will again be observed in accordance with the commandments set forth in the Law” (12:5). 66 Moses Maimonides, and Fred Rosner, Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah, Tractate Sanhedrin (New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981), Sanhedrin 10:1; Pines, Pines, Guide II. 29, pp. 341–44. The statement of the coming of the Jewish Messiah in the Thirteen Principles of Faith strongly conveys historical, political, and national aspects.

A Messianic Image of Torah

329

also as a “national and universal redeemer,” who establishes Israel, and then restores mankind into a utopian state in which all enjoy the widespread attainment of the knowledge of God and Torah. It is worth noting that Maimonides’ depictions of the Messiah reflect a messianic ideal, i.e., a messianic figure, who appears as a sage (scholar), a king (political leader), and a prophet (e.g., the Laws of Repentance 9:2), and who has the knowledge of God and Torah.67 The kingly, priestly, and prophetic images in Maimonides’ conception of the Messiah seem reminiscent of the features of the messianic figures (e.g., Davidic and Aaronic Messiahs and the Teacher of Righteousness) in the Qumran texts.68 Moreover, we can find a similarity between Philo’s idea of messianic era and Maimonides’ naturalistic messianism. As noted earlier, Philo appears to assume a gradual messianic process, which combines a Stoic ideal and a rabbinic ideal through the idea of Logos, rather than an apocalyptic messianic vision.69 Likewise, for Maimonides, a new messianic era is established in a gradual process of history becoming perfected, leading to the ultimate redemption by a historical figure who conveys the priestly, sage-like, and prophetic images, and will teach a greater knowledge of God and Torah during the messianic era.70 It is beneficial to recall that the images of a “man,” a figure who is an allegorical designator for Philo’s Logos, implicitly represent a messianic and salvific figure, who will accomplish the teachings of the Torah (the Laws of Moses) in a messianic era.71 The similarities between Philo’s idea of messianism and Maimonides’ messianism include not only projecting a messianic era, in which the teachings of Torah will have dominant status, but also pursuing a spiritualized and eschatological messianism, that is also manifest in early Jewish and Christian sources. In all, for Maimonides, the messianic era would further enhance not only a philosophical contemplation of the idea of devekut, i.e., achieving philosophical knowledge of God and Torah, but also a widespread phenomenon of greater knowledge of God. This shows that Maimonides implicitly integrates the concepts of the Messiah, Torah, and “world to come” into a particular 67 Maimonides, Mishneh Torah, the Laws of Repentance (Teshuvah) 11:2 (92a). It says, “a great prophet, close to the level of Moses, our teacher,” will “teach the entire nation and instruct them in the path of God.” 68 Jacob Liver, “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth,” HTR 52.3 (1959): 149–85. 69 Philo, Praem, xxix, 169–171. 70 Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar,” 173; Schwartz, “The Neutralization of the Messianic Idea in Medieval Jewish Rationalism,” 37–58. While Maimonides attenuates the apocalyptic elements, he emphasizes Neoplatonic and Aristotelian thought in his messianic vision. 71 Wolfson, Philo, 2:423–31.

330

Chapter 5

framework of naturalistic messianism intertwined with the rabbinic and philosophical ideas. This also demonstrates that Maimonides’s messianic vision is focused on an eschatological union through the idea of devekut, which plays a critical role in formulating the messianic images of Torah. The eschatological union through the idea of devekut is implicitly combined with an angelic or divine-like image symbolized in the images of the Active Intellect, which is identified with Torah. This substantiates that the images of the Messiah in Maimonides’ naturalistic messianism are profoundly interlocked not only with the conceptions of the messianic era and “world to come,” but also with the angelic, messianic, and divine-like images of Torah, which are based on the rabbinic and philosophical ideas. 2.2 In the Abulafian Tradition More importantly, Maimonides’ conception of messianism can be found in the messianic understanding of ecstatic kabbalists, and it reaches its culmination in the manner in which Abulafia has conceived of messianism as related to individual and spiritualized redemption. Like Maimonides, for Abulafia, messianic redemption, understood as a natural process without an apocalyptic catastrophe, requires the state of devekut through which humans achieve intellectual perfection by interpreting the essence and secrets of the Torah, which will be revealed during the messianic era.72 As Scholem explains, the mainstream of the thirteenth-century kabbalah appears to emphasize a spiritualized and individual redemption, i.e., the return of the human soul to its source, on the basis of a Neoplatonic (emanative) system. As such, it marginalizes the critical features of apocalyptic messianism.73 Specifically, we can see that Abulafia’s messianism prioritizes an anthropocentric perspective that epitomizes a human intellectual perfection. Abulafia’s messianism is also focused on a spiritualized and psychologized messianism as a new messianic model in the Jewish mystical tradition which synthesizes prophecy and messianism. He elaborates on the concept of the Active Intellect as it relates to the human soul or intellect (i.e., the idea of devekut) by utilizing the rabbinic, philosophical, and mystical ideas in order to articulate his messianic vision. Abulafia’s noetic messianism is related to an individual’s psychological and spiritual salvation accomplished through the noetic union understood as unio mystica and based

72 73

Abulafia’s conception of the messianic era for revealing the secrets of Torah can be gleaned from his works such as Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 73a–b; Sefer ha-Ḥesheq (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2002), 8–13. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 38–39; However, Pedaya shows that there are apocalyptic aspects in the thirteenth century kabbalah, especially the Zohar. See Haviva Pedaya, “The Sixth Millennium: Millenarism and Messianism in the Zohar,” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 72 (2012): 60–75; 85–91 (Hebrew).

A Messianic Image of Torah

331

on an ontic continuum between the human (material) intellect and the Active Intellect, which emanated the former. As examined earlier, we can understand how Abulafia applies his noetic transformation theory to his theory of the unification of his intellect and the Active Intellect, and how the Active intellect is identical to the Torah and its Divine Name, i.e., the Tetragrammaton. In Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot, Abulafia emphasizes that to achieve prophecy and human perfection, the path of divine names which derive from the Active Intellect, is more significant than the path of commandments in the literal sense of the Torah.74 By this logic, Abulafia pursues the devekut to the Tetragrammaton by employing the linguistic techniques of combining and meditating on the letters of the Torah.75 As explained earlier, Abulafia’s idea of devekut culminates in a unity between the human intellect and the Active Intellect through a synthesis of both Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian elements.76 What allows this unity is the fact that the human intellect flows from the Active Intellect, which flows from the First Cause, which contains everything, through the process of intellection.77 On the basis of this theory, Abulafia theorizes that the Active Intellect is identified with the Messiah through the use of gematrias.78 By this logic, he further develops the prophetic experience through the devekut to the Active Intellect into an experience of mystical union, which he understands as a self-messianization and an experience of being the anointed one.79 Abulafia connects this concept to a prophetic experience of a messianic character that concerns the secret of the redemption.80 Abulafia prioritizes the mystical experience (i.e., an ecstasy of the devekut to the Divine Name), which is identified 74

Abulafia, Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 24. Abulafia notes that the ẓaddik (‫ )הצדיק‬who completed the requirements of the commandments, needs to move forward to the hidden philosophical and kabbalistic paths of the divine names and the Active (or Divine) Intellect (‫(השכל האלוהי‬. 75 Idel, Abraham Abulafia’s Works and Doctrine (Hebrew; PhD diss., Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976), 16–50. Idel explains that Abulafia utilizes the kabbalistic terms stemming from his own type of esotericism to establish the authenticity of his self-internalization and messianization. 76 Afterman, op. cit., 117. This unity can explain the human intellect’s incorruptibility and eternality. 77 Abulafia, ʾOr ha-Sekhel, 115, 118–19. There is explicit explanation about the identification between “the ones receiving the flow,” and “the Active Intellect,” as one essence. 78 Idel, The Mystical Experience of Abraham Abulafia (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2012), 135; Scholem, Major Trends, 382. Cf. Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 12–17. 79 Scholem also compares the idea of devekut and prophecy to the messianic ideas. Abulafia’s approach appears similar to Maimonides’ approach to the anthropomorphic aspects of biblical texts. See Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 51, 185, 194, 204. 80 Abulafia, Ve-zot le-Yehudah (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2009), 23. Abulafia connects the knowledge of the Names and prophecy with the secrets of redemption. See also Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 134–37, 141–43.

332

Chapter 5

with prophetic revelation, while neutralizing the apocalyptic elements (i.e., the actual coming of the Messiah). He thereby identifies the prophetic person with a messianic figure.81 Abulafia further establishes the preconditions for the Messiah: prophecy through the intensity of devekut (i.e., a state of unio mystica) to the Divine Intellect and a universal recognition of being the Messiah.82 Surprisingly, in Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, Abulafia describes his own prophetic-mystical experiences as transforming his into a messianic figure.83 Most importantly for my purposes, Abulafia’s self-messianization also alludes to the personification or incarnation of the Torah itself, which is identified with the Active Intellect in his system.84 In all, Abulafia himself becomes a messianic being united with the Active Intellect, and eventually an incarnate Messiah identified with Torah itself through his prophetic and apotheotic experience, i.e., the transformative and absorptive identification between Abulafia’s intellect and the Active Intellect as a messianic entity. Abulafia’s self-messianization as a result of his prophetic-mystical experiences, combines an ecstatic and apocalyptic conception and alludes to the advent of a historical messianic agent of the type described in rabbinic and midrashic literatures.85 Abulafia explicitly describes his self-messianization as an apotheotic experience, i.e., one that culminates in his becoming an angelic and messianic figure as the result of his prophetic experience.86 Abulafia further describes how the apotheotic experience results in the messianic image of 81

Andre Neher describes the features of the Prophet-Messiah, such as ‘theopolitics’ and performing the miracles. See Neher, The Prophetic Existence, trans. William Wolf (New York: A. S. Barnes, 1969), 225–26. 82 Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 8; idem, Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Shemot (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 81–82. Cf. Abraham Berger, “The Messianic Self-Consciousness of Abraham Abulafia: A Tentative Evaluation,” in Essays on Jewish Life and Thought: Presented in Honor of Salo Wittmayer Baron, ed. Joseph L. Blau, Philip Friedman, Arthur Hertzberg, and Isaac Mendelsohn (New York: Columbia University Press, 1959), 58–59. 83 Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 12–17. Abulafia identifies the names of patriarchs with the spiritual Divine Names (‫אדני‬, ‫אלהים‬, ‫ ֵאל ַש ַדי‬and ‫)יהוה‬, while thereby identifying Abulafia himself with the Messiah. Abulafia mentions that he learned, through an epiphany that he will be “the Anointed of God and his messenger” and also be called “the angel of God.” Cf. Sefer ha-Melamed (Jerusalem: n.p., 2001), 206a. “I called Sadday like My Name” and “and He is I and I am He.” Through the examples of Ps 2:7 and Dt 32:29, the supernal Divine power and the human power are identified through the devekut. 84 Afterman, And they Shall be One Flesh, 125–29, 151–65. See also Scholem, Major Trends, 140–41. 85 Idel, “Torah Ḥadashah – Messiah and the New Torah in Jewish Mysticism and Modern Scholarship,” Kabbalah 21 (2010): 58; Scholem, Major Trends, 382; Abulafia, Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Shemot (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 150. Cf. Pedaya, “The Sixth Millennium,” 74–75. 86 Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 16–17. See also Sefer Sitrei Torah, 129b–130a; Idel, “Metatron: Notes towards the Development of Myth in Judaism,” ʾEshel Beʾer-Sheva 4 (1996): 36–37 (Hebrew).

A Messianic Image of Torah

333

the anointment, which seems to refer to mystical experience, and leads to the transformation into Metatron, “the angel of the Lord.”87 This is a reverberation of the apotheotic motif in the Ashkenazi literature examined earlier, i.e., the transformation of the mystic into “the angel of the Lord” or the “son of God,” possessing a salvific and hypostatic character through the combination of the divine names. Abulafia creates a messianic image that combines the angelic images of the hypostatic notions of Torah as is described in Sefer Sitrei Torah.88 Interestingly, Abulafia identifies Metatron with various hypostatic notions, such as the Active Intellect, the Holy Spirit, and shekhinah and even Elohim.89 According to the sages’ dictum that “Enoch Is Metatron,” Abulafia more develops the concept of Metatron into a biblical and messianic concept by connecting its name of Metatron to Yahoʾel whose secret is Ben and is the Savior or Redeemer (‫)גוא״ל‬. By this logic, Metatron, who encompasses the features of the Active Intellect, Yahoʾel, and the shekhinah, appears as an eschatological and messianic figure who will redeem the human intellect and world.90 On the basis of the messianic images combined with an angelic image of Metatron and the Active Intellect, Abulafia also evokes the son-like (or angelic) images of shekhinah in his interpretation of the divine names of the “son of God” and “Son of Man.”91 For Abulafia, a mystical experience of enjoying “the radiance of the Shekhinah” (‫ )מזיו השכינה‬is related to revealing the secrets of the divine names of the “son of God” as they relate to the names of “Moses and ʾEliyahu” through the linguistic techniques of combination, permutation, and gematria.92 Abulafia further connects the image of the shekhinah, which is identified with the Active Intellect, to the “Ben” i.e., a son-like (or angelic) image of “Son of Man,” and to 87 88 89 90 91

92

Talmon, “The Concept of Messiah and Messianism in Early Judaism,” 83. Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 53. Ibid., 53–54. Box, in The Apocalypse of Abraham, xxv, notes that the explicit identification of Metatron and Yahoʾel with the shekhinah becomes convergent with the Tetragrammaton as the Divine Ineffable Name. Cf. Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord, 81–82. Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 28: ‫וסוד שמות שניהם ידוע לנו והוא מצורף זה עם‬ ‫זה תחילה מש״ה אליה״ו ויוצא מצירופם ש״ם האלוה״י והוא בסודו ש״ם הב״ן שהוא ב״ן‬ ‫הש״ם ונסתרו בנשמ״ה‬. “And the secret of their two names is known to us, and he combines one with the other: first Moses, and then ʾEliyahu, and their combination comes out of a divine name, and he is the name of the Son, in its secret, and he is the Son of God and its secret meaning is in neshamah.” Ibid., fol. 28: Indeed, the hidden meaning of the name of Moshe is me-ʾayin (‫)מאי״ן‬, which represents ani me-hashem “I am from the Name (i.e., God)” and he is the Truth … The hidden meaning of ʾEliyahu … is ben ʾadam (‫)ב״ן אד״ם‬, “Son of Man” … in the interpretation of “Consecrate to me every firstborn male” (Ex 13:2) … and the gematria of ʾEliyahu is Ben and see that his secret is “Son of Man.”

334

Chapter 5

Metatron.93 Through a metaphor of a “father-son,” – God is the father and the Active Intellect is the son – these comments explicitly elucidate the son-like and angelic images of the Active Intellect in its relationship with God (i.e., the divine essence).94 In all, the intellectual perfection achieved in the process of the devekut to the Active Intellect or shekhinah plays a critical role in creating an apotheotic experience (becoming a spiritual and angelic being) and in elevating the human soul (or intellect) to a hypostatized messianic status. By this logic, Abulafia himself conveys a messianic image of Torah which appears close to an angelic figure incarnated and personified through devekut to the Active Intellect which, as I explained, is identical to the Torah. It also shows that Abulafia tries to portray a salvific and messianic figure, one who is associated with an angelic image as a result of the process of the devekut between the human intellect and the Active Intellect. This shows that Abulafia’s self-messianization directly reflects the messianic image of the Active Intellect as a visualized (i.e., angelic, and messianic) mediator that connects between God and the human soul (or intellect). Finally, it demonstrates that Abulafia’s definitive goal of messianic visions was the intellectual perfection of the human soul (or intellect) through devekut. In so doing, he projects a messianic model, which synthesizes an angelic, salvific, and eschatological image, and combines them with the images of Torah. On the other hand, as previously noted, unlike the messianic image that is closer to a son-like and angelic image as mediator, we can also find a messianic image that appears closer to the God-like image of Torah in Abulafia’s system. It is critical to recall that for Abulafia, the human intellect can be subsequently identified with the Active Intellect and even God in a unique and radical union as becoming one essence.95 This shows that like Maimonides, Abulafia’s ultimate goal is the highest degree of the noetic union, which alludes to true human perfection in terms of the ideal of devekut, i.e., unio mystica. It becomes clear that Abulafia’s profound implications of unio mystica appear as the idea of noetic union based on a Neo-Aristotelian platform, which serves for his radical mystical path leading to a complete union with the Active Intellect and eventually with God.96 93 94

Ibid. See also Idel, Abraham Abulafia’s Works and Doctrine, 135. The relationship of the human intellect to the Active Intellect can be applied to the image of “son of a king” in Ps 1:2. 95 Abulafia, ʾOr ha-Sekhel, 118–19, 141. Abulafia’s radical idea is that the Active Intellect, the human intellect and God is one essence. 96 Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 1–30.

A Messianic Image of Torah

335

By this logic, Abulafia appears to construct his mystical experience as a process of intellectualizing the human intellect, through the apotheotic experience. As Idel notes, Abulafia’s conception of messianism conveys not only “the mystical path in the forms of via perfectionis with a strong quest for apotheotic experiences,” but also “both apotheosis and theophany as having strong eschatological and messianic valences.”97 Indeed, Abulafia’s description of the apotheotic experience is based on his conception of unio mystica, which presupposes an ontological continuum between the human (potential or material) intellect, the Active Intellect (and Metatron), and eventually with the Divine Intellect.98 This implies that Abulafia schematizes two possibilities of devekut: cleaving to the Active Intellect, which has a God-like image, and thereby experiencing the level of unio mystica with God. This is opposed to Maimonides, who did not accept the feasibility of full union with the Active Intellect let alone the possibility of union with God, even if he recognized the possibility of the human intellect’s conjunction with the Active Intellect as “an object of thought.”99 Abulafia’s position implies not only the possibility of achieving human intellectual perfection through a direct contact with the Active Intellect but also a possibility of the state of unio mystica as a full-fledged mystical experience between the human mystic and the Active Intellect. This corroborates that a spiritually and intellectually perfected human intellect itself reflects a hypostatized messianic entity. Specifically, Abulafia further articulates the apotheotic experience by associating kabbalistic thought, which is embodied in his mystical experience, with ancient messianic themes and terminologies.100 It is imperative to recall that the sage-like images of the messianic figure are reminiscent of the salvific and God-like (e.g., “prophet” and “sage”) images in the activities and rhetorics of Jesus in the Synoptics. It is also beneficial to recall the God-like images of various hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the Logos, Metatron, Yahoʾel, and shekhinah, as they appear in the Second Temple, Enochic, Hekhalot, and 97 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 58–59. 98 Ibid., 359; Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 130a. 99 See Herbert A. Davidson, “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge,” in Maimonidean Studies 3, ed. Arthur Hyman (New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 1995), 92–98. Davidson summarizes that for Maimonides, the human intellect can attain human “thought as a permanent object,” it can enter “a state of permanent conjunction with the Active Intellect” (98). Pines, “The Limitations of Human Knowledge,” 74–79. 100 Idel, “Hermeticism and Judaism,” in Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe, ed. Ingrid Merkel and Allen Debus (Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988), 59–76.

336

Chapter 5

Ashkenazi literature, as well as the medieval kabbalistic sources.101 As Idel analyzes, in the Ashkenazi literature, including Sefer ha-Ḥesheq, Metatron appears to have a messianic and hypostatized image, which combines with a divine-like image derived from the divine names, such as Yahoʾel in relation to the Tetragrammaton through the gematria.102 Against this background, Abulafia also associates the Active Intellect with the God-like and messianic images of Metatron and shekhinah. As noted earlier, the images of the Active Intellect also convey a messianic image combined with a God-like image of the shekhinah and Metatron as “the Redeemer” (ha-goʾel), who is a hypostatic deliverer, and the omnipresent and transcendent Messiah.103 This shows that the Active Intellect appears as a hypostatic and transcendental Messiah, who would teach the secrets of the Torah, and would eventually redeem the human intellect and world. In this vein, Abulafia conceptually associates the messianic figure with the image of an authentic interpreter, who functions as a God-like mediator. Specifically, we can also find that in Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ the image of the Active Intellect (which is identified with the Tree of Life through gematria) conveys a God-like image of Torah, in a manner similar to the case in the Zohar. In an anonymous note in Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, there is also allusion to the identification between the Messiah and the first sefirah, keter, which amplifies the relationship between the Messiah, the High Priest, and the Torah.104 In Sefer ha-ʾOt, we can see Abulafia’s explanation of this relationship. As Abulafia and R. Isaac of Acre implied, the supernal Messiah, who is 101 See Fossum, The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord, 292–321; Flusser, Judaism and the Origins of Christianity, 531–34. Flusser analyzes the relationship between Enoch as Metatron in ancient Jewish literature and the concept of the Son of God in ancient Christianity. Cf. Amos N. Wilder, “The Rhetoric of Ancient and Modern Apocalyptic,” Interpretation 25 (1971): 436–53; John. J. Collins, “The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic,” Biblical Research 19 (1974): 5–22. 102 Idel, Ben, 200–14. 103 Abulafia, Sefer Sitrei Torah, 132b. 104 Abulafia, Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 13a. The unique role of the high priest, who pronounces the Divine Name (i.e., the Tetragrammaton) to receive the blessing, atonement, and the teachings of Torah, reflects a priestly and prophetic image of the Messiah. These images are connected to a salvific image, which accomplishes the messianic missions and redemption of the people of Israel. See Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” in Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics, and Typology, ed. Robert A. Herrera (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 97–122; idem, Messianic Mystics, 94–96; idem, Mystical Experience, 105–8; idem, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 108–11, 125–26; Scholem, Major Trends, 379; Wolfson, Through a Speculum that Shines, 20–22. Philo also sees a profound relationship between the roles of high priest and mystical (i.e., ecstatic) experience. See Philo of Alexandria, The Contemplative Life, The Giants, and Selections (Classics of Western

A Messianic Image of Torah

337

designated by the priestly image of keter ʿelyon, ushers in the last sefirah, shekhinah, i.e., the lower Messiah, who is eventually identified with the human Messiah.105 This model alludes to a possibility of the devekut to the divine intellect, i.e., a state of unio mystica.106 This implies that just as the human intellect on a psychological level is transformed by the Active Intellect, on an ontological level, the human or lower Messiah as a lower shekhinah is transformed by Abulafia’s system into the supernal Messiah, a transcendent savior and a higher shekhinah. It is also reminiscent of the priestly and prophetic images of Jesus as the Messiah, and the “prophet” and “priest” images of the Messiahs of Aaron and Israel in the Qumran texts and rabbinic literature. This implies that the state of the devekut and unio mystica means the returning of the human soul (or intellect) to the ultimate source of being, the first sefirah, keter, through his ultimate attainment of prophecy. This corroborates that Abulafia explicitly associates the priestly image of the supernal Messiah with a God-like image of the Tetragrammaton and the first sefirah, keter, on the basis of the identification between the Messiah, the high priest, and the Torah. These images reflect a God-like image of the Messiah, which is connected to the Active intellect and Torah. Furthermore, their combining of a God-like image of the hypostatic notions of Torah with a messianic image has an eschatological implication for the way in which the Active Intellect is understood. As noted in Idel’s article, Torah Ḥadashah, Abulafia particularly appears to propose the affinity between the Active Intellect and a supernal Messiah in terms of the close relationship between the Messiah and New Torah, the Torah of the messianic era.107 Abulafia thereby portrays the New Torah as a messianic figure, who is quite different from a figure of the Messiah that appears in rabbinic sources.108 The messianic images in the New Torah has not only an eschatological character but also reflects a God-like image of the Messiah.109 Spirituality) trans. David Winston (New York: Paulist Press, 1981), 254; Maren R. Niehoff, “What Is a Name? Philo’s Mystical Philosophy of Language,” JSQ 2 (1995): 232–33. 105 Abulafia, Sefer ha-ʾOt (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001), 129–30. Like Abulafia, R. Isaac of Acre, in Meʾirat ʿEinayyim, also connects the anthropomorphic image of supernal Messiah to the first sefirah, keter ʿelyon, who is superior to Moses, who is, himself, designated by the sixth sefirah, tiferet. See Isaac of Acre, Sefer Meʾirat ʿEinayim, 113, 125–26, 150–54. See Idel, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 53; idem, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 118. 106 See Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 33, 73–89, 128–34, 200. Cf. Aviezer Ravitzky, “To the Utmost of Human Capacity: Maimonides on the Days of the Messiah,” in Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies, ed. Joel L. Kraemer and Lawrence V. Berman (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), 225. 107 Idel, The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia, 70–78. 108 Idel, “Torah Ḥadashah,” 70–78. 109 Ibid., 67, 78–81.

338

Chapter 5

In Abulafia’s system, the New Torah of the Messiah symbolizes not only an eschatological salvation by God but also embodies a messianic image combined with a God-like image of Torah. At the same time, as examined earlier, Abulafia appears to create a messianic model for the human intellect intellectualized by the Active Intellect through the noetic union understood as unio mystica, while thereby applying the supernal messianic image of New Torah to the messianic model of the human Messiah who eventually will conduct a redemptive action via passionis.110 This shows that Abulafia creates a dualistic concept of the Messiah: the human messiah as an individual who embodies the ideal of devekut through an apotheotic experience, and the supernal Messiah as the divine presence who will come down to the mundane world for an eschatological salvation. 2.3 In the Zoharic and Gikatillian Traditions In a manner similar to Abulafia’s conception of messianism, in de Leon’s Sekhel ha-Qodesh, the identification of the human Messiah with shekhinah is symbolized as the “mystery of communion” (sod ha-hidabbequt) i.e., the communion between shekhinah and King David, who longs for malkhut (the tenth sefirah of shekhinah), the feminine divine power.111 It is beneficial to recall that the theurgic expressions in the idea of devekut were already used by Hasidei Ashkenaz and the Bahiric circle.112 De Leon also connects a mystical human king-Messiah to the supernal Messiah through the theurgical theory of devekut. This assumes an ontic continuum between the higher worlds (shekhinah) and lower worlds (human king-messiah) that is effected through a theurgical operation and eventually leads to a state of unio mystica.113 Unlike an apocalyptic savior who breaks the historical processes, the image of a king-Messiah appears not only as an apotheotic messianic figure, who becomes one with the 110 Ibid., 70–78. 111 Moses ben Shem Tov de Leon, Sefer Sheqel ha-Qodesh, ed. C. Mopsik (Hebrew; Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1966), 71–74; Scholem, Studies and Texts Concerning the History of Sabbetianism and Its Metamorphoses (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1974), 245. 112 Afterman, Devequt, 227–70; R Ezra of Gerona, “Commentary on the Song of Songs,” 4–6 (pp. 495–518). R. Ezra and R Azriel of Gerona, and R. Isaac the Blind support the idea of devekut (Dt 13:5) leading to theurgical action, i.e., prayer cleaving to the Divine Name in relation to the sefirotic system. See Seth Brody, “Human Hands Dwell in Heavenly Heights: Contemplative Ascent and Theurgic Power in Thirteenth Century Kabbalah,” in Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics, and Typologies, ed. Robert A. Herrera (New York: Peter Lang, 1993), 123–58. 113 Moses de Leon, Sheqel haQodesh, 27, 33, 84, 91–95; Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar,” 185; Caroline W. Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (Berkeley; LA: University of California Press, 1984), 110–69.

A Messianic Image of Torah

339

shekhinah but also a theurgical performer who conducts redemptive actions in a continuous and sustainable manner within the world.114 It is notable that Abulafia’s ecstatic-prophetic experience, which is based on the noetic transformation and union theory (i.e., an approach that facilitates the devekut and eventual unio mystica to the Active Intellect), is profoundly related to Gikatilla’s system of the theurgical activities of the ẓaddik in the ascending and descending processes.115 On the one hand, as the first pattern in Gikatilla’s Shaʿarei Ẓedek, the ẓaddik, who is identified with the ninth sefirah, yesod in the sefirotic system, appears as a messianic figure cleaving to the tenth sefirah, shekhinah. The messianic image of the ẓaddik, when attached to shekhinah, ascends and conveys an angelic image that appears close to a visual and angelic mediator, like the Active Intellect.116 As Federico Dal Bo notes, Gikatilla, in Shaʿarei Ẓedek, explicitly associates the human ẓaddik and the divine (sefirah) ẓaddik, while connecting the human realms to the supernal realms through a linguistic and sefirotic symbolism.117 As Dal Bo notes, Gikatilla interprets the famous biblical and historical events (e.g., Exodus) in order to explain metaphysical and redemptive events (i.e., the restoration of the sefirot and the salvation of the

114 Idel, Mystical Experience, 200–201, 223–24; idem, Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah, 66. The hypostatic status of the king-Messiah conveys not only an individual but also a divine manifestation. For Abulafia, the image of a king-Messiah is reminiscent of the image of the son of God as an embodiment of a divine power in a manner similar to the ancient Near Eastern royal ideology, especially in the ancient Egyptian religion. By contrast, for de Leon, the image of a king-Messiah appears closer to the concept of a messianic figure adopted by gods in the Babylonian religion. 115 Despite their profound relationships, Gikatilla’s theurgic and theosophic messianism in Shaʿarei Ẓedek is categorically different from Abulafia’s prophetic messianism, which culminates in an ecstatic union with the divine names. Idel, KNP, 62–73; idem, “Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah,” Jewish History 18.2–3 (2004): 197–226. See also Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek (Cracow: Druck and Verlag von Fisher & Deutscher 1881), fols. 21b–22b. 116 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, fols. 21b, 22b; Scholem, Major Trends, 80, 173. Abulafian influence can be found non only in Ginnat ʾEgoz but also in Shaʿarei Ẓedek. It is also notable that even in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, the messianic image of the ẓaddik conveys an angelic image in a human figure, who experiences the noetic union (i.e., devekut) based on the prophetic experience in a theurgical direction. 117 Federico Dal Bo, Emanation and Philosophy of Language: An Introduction to Joseph ben Abraham Giqatilla (Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2019), 148–64, 181–83. Dal Bo notes that Gikatilla’s hermeneutical strategies assume that “language is ontologically connected to metaphysical realities” (183). In this sense, Shaʿarei Ẓedek plays a transitional role in connecting his early writing, Ginnat ʾEgoz, to his later writing, Shaʿarei ʾOrah, which explicitly reflects the sefirotic symbolism.

340

Chapter 5

mundane world).118 Gikatilla explicitly associates the theurgical activity of the human ẓaddik (or ẓaddikim) with the sefirah ẓaddik.119 On the basis of this logic, as Dal Bo explains, for Gikatilla, the human ẓaddik who performs and fulfills prayers and mitzvot, not only mediates between the supernal and mundane world but also brings blessings and peace to the mundane world.120 The theurgical act (and righteous behavior) of the human ẓaddik (prayers and mitzvot) ultimately causes not only the restoration of the supernal world of the sefirot but also the restoration of the mundane world, i.e., the human perfection through the theurgical actions.121 This is implicitly similar to Abulafia’s conception of an ontic identification of the human intellect with the Active Intellect, and eventually leads to the ideal of devekut, i.e., unio mystica. Above all, on the groundwork of the relationship of the divine ẓaddik to the human ẓaddik through the sefirotic symbolism, we can infer that the theurgical activities of the human ẓaddik appear to convey not only a salvific and messianic image, but also an angelic image in relation to the images of shekhinah in the sefirotic system, which were discussed earlier. On the other hand, as Dal Bo explains, Gikatilla’s use of the term shefa (influx), related to the theurgical acts of the ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek, conveys a conception of bidirectional (ascending and descending) emanation.122 In this sense, as the second pattern, the sefirah ẓaddik, after attaching to binah moves in descending order. This pattern of ẓaddik, which reflects a symbolic process of divine emanation, appears to convey not only a divine-like image in the higher sefirot, but also a salvific image. Then, the act of the divine ẓaddik is focused on the union with shekhinah (or malkhut) in descending order from keter to shekhinah.123 The ẓaddik brings down the shefa from the three higher sefirot, and then from binah (i.e., teshuvah) to tiferet, and finally to shekhinah (or malkhut), thereby entirely combining all ten sefirot.124 The fractured status of the sefirotic system appears to be united through the theurgical acts and 118 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, fols. 15–16; Dal Bo, Emanation and Philosophy of Language, 148–65. 119 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 12 (shaʿar 2). 120 Dal Bo, Emanation and Philosophy of Language, 174–75. 121 Ibid., 174–83. 122 Dal Bo, “The Theory of ‘Emanation’ in Gikatilla’s Gates of Justice,” JJS 62.1 (2011): 79–104. As Dal Bo suggests, Gikatilla transforms a single (i.e., descending) direction of the emanation into “spatial coordinates,” i.e., pouring down from above to below and circulating from below to above. This explains why Gikatilla prefers to use the mystical term shefa which is also compatible with the ascending direction. As examined earlier, Abulafia used the term shefa, which implies “a divine overflow” of prophecy in a Neoplatonic sense. The term atsilut, in contrast, seems to represent one direction from above to below. 123 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 11b, 46a; Idel, Messianic Mystics, 110. 124 Idel, “On the Intention of Silent Prayer in R Isaac the Blind,” 28.

A Messianic Image of Torah

341

devekut of the ẓaddik, which play an important role in the process of creating the unifications between binah and shekhinah. In this process, the ẓaddik, who descends from the higher sefirot to redeem the lower realms, appears to play a redemptive role in unifying himself with shekhinah (or malkhut) through sexual symbolism.125 As noted earlier, Gikatilla connects the images and activities of the divine ẓaddik as a model for the human ẓaddik to the theurgical activities (prayers and mitzvot) of the human ẓaddik. Gikatilla further creates a symbolic system for the theurgical activities of ẓaddik, and reconceptualizes the hypostatic symbols, yesod and shekhinah as two entities: prayer of the human soul (or intellect) and redemption.126 The human ẓaddik thereby appears to have a theurgical impact on both the restoration of the sefirot and the ultimate redemption of the mundane world.127 In all, Gikatilla puts a special emphasis on the theurgical functions and meanings of the ẓaddik as a salvific and divine image who visualizes the divine reality from the third sefirah, binah, and the higher sefirot. The sefirah ẓaddik in descending order, when attached to binah, which conveys a divine-like image in the higher sefirot, also appears to convey not only a salvific image, but also close to a divine-like image, who fills in for God Himself. Furthermore, Gikatilla further connects the image of ẓaddik, combined with binah, to the divine images of ḥokhmah and keter in an ideal state of divine unity. He thereby appears to create a messianic image of ẓaddik as a non-visual and divine mediator. Interestingly, we can also find that the angelic image of the ẓaddik, in the eventual stage of ascending process, by unifying with the higher sefirot, such as binah, ḥokhmah, and even with the first sefirah keter or with Ein Sof, shows a gradual (i.e., apotheotic) change into a divine-like image.128 This is very reminiscent of the case of Abulafia, who connects the supernal Messiah and the first sefirah, keter ʿelyon as examined earlier. This also shows that Gikatilla formulates the divine-like images of ẓaddik, by connecting them to the divine-like images of binah (and ḥokhmah) in proximity with Ein Sof, and thereby creates a messianic and divine-like image of Torah as a non-visualized and ultimate 125 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 3b (shaʿar 1). Cf. Shaʿarei ʾOrah 33 (shaʿar 5). Tiferet represents a male symbol as the source of the divine energy, and shekhinah represents a female symbol, which receives the flows of the power of life from tiferet and yesod. In the works of Geronese kabbalists, we can also see, in descending order, sexual symbolism in the unification of the sefirot. 126 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 104–5; Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek 20 (shaʿar 2). 127 Dal Bo, Emanation and Philosophy of Language, 177–86. Dal Bo analyzes, the “double direction” in the thought of Gikatilla, that creates a metaphysical and organic nexus between “the inferior and the superior world” which can allow the process of restoration and salvation of the two worlds. 128 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, fols. 45–50 (shaʿar 9).

342

Chapter 5

mediator.129 The messianic image of the divine ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek appears as an ideal model for the theurgical actions (and religious behaviors) of the human ẓaddik through the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies. By this logic, the images of the human ẓaddik also conveys a salvific image, who exercises a theophanic and redemptive action for the ultimate vision of a messianic era, and who will reveal the secrets of the Torah, and thereby conveys a divine-like image of Torah.130 More significantly, through Gikatilla’s symbolic system, which is based on the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies, the image of the sefirah ẓaddik coming down from the divine realms at a higher level in the sefirotic system, explicitly reemerges in the divine-like and salvific images of a human figure, who comes down for the spiritual redemption of the human soul and for the ultimate redemption, i.e., the ideal of devekut. In this sense, it is beneficial to note that these messianic and divine-like features of ẓaddik are reminiscent of the poetic-mythic or linguistic-anthropomorphic descriptions which map the theurgical powers of prayer and mitẓvot in a matrix of the sefirotic symbols, which were already developed by the early kabbalists of Provence and Gerona, such as R. Isaac the Blind and R. Ezra of Gerona, as we have discussed earlier.131 As also noted earlier, this implies that the ecstatic and philosophical features of Abulafia’s idea of devekut have a great impact on Gikatilla’s hermeneutical methodology. In a manner similar to Abulafia’s conception of the theurgical activities, the sefirah ẓaddik appears as a divine-like and salvific figure as an ideal model for the devekut of the human soul (or intellect).132 This substantiates that Gikatilla associates the theosophic and theurgic conceptions with an

129 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 103, 109. 130 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, fols. 37–44. There is a similar idea in the Zoharic sources. Gikatilla conceptualizes a theurgical doctrine of the ẓaddik, i.e., recognizing the existence of superior individuals with the spiritual level of devekut, which is higher than those of other human beings. Cf. Ada Rapoport-Albert, “God and the Ẓaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship,” History of Religions 4 (1979): 318–20. 131 Eitan P. Fishbane, As Light before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009), 203–17; Scholem and Simon Pleasance, “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbalah,” 59–80, 164–94; Idel, “On the Intention of Silent Prayer in R Isaac the Blind,” in Massuhot: Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb, ed. Mikhal Oron and Amos Goldreich (Hebrew; Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994), 25–52. 132 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 36, 43. Interestingly, unlike the early kabbalists who preserved the mystical ideas of devekut and divine unity for a small number of elite and esoteric groups, in the thought of Gikatilla, even the unlearned, who cannot properly exercise the prayer and mitzvot, are advised to contemplate the ẓaddik through the idea of devekut.

A Messianic Image of Torah

343

(individual) mystical experience of devekut and unio mystica.133 Moreover, it is crucial to note that, in a manner similar to Abulafia, Gikatilla’s approach, which facilitates a theurgical devekut and eventual unio mystica, is implicitly related to an esoteric knowledge of the divine names (especially the Tetragrammaton) in the Torah. As Idel also notes, Gikatilla’s theosophic kabbalah appears to contain “the view of the divine name as a symbol of the divine structure,” which derives from “an older esoteric tradition,” i.e., practices of pronunciation of the letters of the divine names and their interpretations.134 Indeed, Gikatilla’s Shaʿarei Ẓedek shows a significant relationship between practices of pronunciation of the letters of the divine names in the Torah and prayers along with mitẓvot.135 This explicitly reverberates the influences of Abulafia’s approach to the mitẓvot (in relation to the devekut and unio mystica to the letters of the Tetragrammaton).136 In this context, we can also infer that in Shaʿarei Ẓedek, the divine-like image of ẓaddik attached to either shekhinah, binah or ḥokhmah appears to play a critical role in revealing the secrets of the Torah in the sefirotic symbolism.137 The messianic descriptions of ẓaddik, as a messianic and divine-like image, are reminiscent of the messianic descriptions of revealing the knowledge and secrets of the Torah of the Tree of Life in the messianic age, while being liberated from the yoke of the Torah of the Tree of Knowledge, as described in the Zoharic sources.138 In Gikatilla’s symbolic (i.e., mythic and anthropomorphic) system, the ẓaddik, as a messianic figure connected to binah, appears as a supernal messianic and salvific figure, who, through the process of the devekut, redeems the shekhinah (malkhut or kingdom) and performs the ẓedek ʿelyon (supreme justice) of the giving of the Torah.139 In this sense, the ẓaddik appears 133 Idel, “Torah Ḥadashah,” 58, 70–78; Scholem, Major Trends, 382; Idel, Abraham Abulafia’s Works and Doctrine, 135. Abulafia’s messianic conception is primarily based on the idea of devekut, which implies a communion or union between the human intellect and the Active Intellect on the basis of the synthesis of both Neoplatonic and Neo-Aristotelian elements. 134 Idel, “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names,” 106. 135 See Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 1–13; Abulafia, ʾImrei Shefer (Jerusalem: A. Gros, 1990), 194–95. 136 See Abulafia, Ner ʾElohim (Jerusalem: A. Gros), 170a; Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ, 7a. Wolfson notes that the “mystical rationalization of the commandments” allows for narrowing the gap between the theosophic and ecstatic streams of kabbalah, and between their interpretations of the mitẓvot. See Wolfson, “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer Ha-Rimmon,” HUCA 59 (1988): 217–51. 137 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 43–45. 138 Tishby, The Wisdom of the Zohar, 1106–12. 139 Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 43–45.

344

Chapter 5

not only as a mythically symbolized messianic figure in the sefirotic system but also as divine-like figure in an anthropomorphic form of the Messiah.140 This also implies that the messianic and divine-like images of ẓaddik eventually appear to be absorbed into God Himself without a mediator between God and human beings. Furthermore, it is crucial to note that Gikatilla’s messianic conception, which conveys the influences of Geronese kabbalists, Abulafian, and Zoharic traditions, mainly represents an individual and spiritualized redemption through the theurgical conception of ẓaddik in the sefirotic system.141 This messianic image symbolizes an ahistorical and spiritual process of individual redemption, which transcends a political and historical reality and is removed from expectation of an apocalyptic figure and redemption.142 The main messianic image of ẓaddik in Gikatilla’s system indubitably appears similar to a salvific and God-like image, one who is personified and anthropomorphized as a result of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica, and thereby theophanically manifests a salvific and divine-like image of Torah. In Gikatilla’s symbolic system, as Scholem notes, the ẓaddik as a God-like messianic figure accomplishes, through the theurgical activities, a messianic era, in which the secrets of the Torah are revealed.143 Gikatilla’s theurgical doctrine of the ẓaddik reflects a comprehensive theological system, which combines philosophical, theurgical, theosophical, and even messianic aspects. These features create an abstract or God-like messianic image of the ẓaddik and messianic era conceived by the sefirotic symbolism. As noted earlier, through Gikatilla’s symbolic system, which is based on the mythic and anthropomorphic strategies, the messianic image of the ẓaddik, which is close to a God-like image, appears as a personified messiah who is a theophanic manifestation of the divine achieved through unio mystica and is representative of divine immanence. In all, the messianic images of the ẓaddik, formulated by the sefirotic symbolism, appears not only as a personified (i.e., anthropomorphic), symbolized, and salvific messianic figure but also are convergent with a God-like image of Torah reflects a God-like image of Torah as an ultimate object and subject of unio mystica. In summary, this examination shows that Geronese, Abulafian, Zoharic, and Gikatillian traditions relatively attenuate the features of apocalyptic (or even 140 This feature also appears in Shaʿarei ʾOrah and the Zoharic sources. Cf. Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 16, 36. 141 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 106–8. 142 Liebes, “The Messiah of the Zohar,” 91, 99, 195–203. 143 Scholem, Origins of Kabbalah, 59. Scholem also sees a profound influence of the Sefer ha-Bahir on Gikatilla’s conception of the ẓaddik and especially on the messianic implication of this figure in Shaʿarei Ẓedek.

A Messianic Image of Torah

345

political) features of redemption of the messianic figures, while emphasizing a spiritualized and individualized (or psychologized) messianism through the sefirotic symbolism. As Scholem explains, the focus on the divine unity, cosmogony, and cosmology in philosophical and kabbalistic thought in the thirteenth-century kabbalah marginalized the critical features of apocalyptic messianism, while emphasizing a spiritualized and individual redemption, i.e., the return of the human soul to the source in a Neoplatonic (emanative) system.144 Specifically, the messianic characteristics in the Geronese and Zoharic sources are primarily concerned with a theosophical-theurgical approach, which emphasizes the redemptive and restorative impact of the theurgical activities on the divine and human realms.145 These features of the messianic image mainly create an abstract or God-like messianic figure and a similarly abstract messianic era conceived by the sefirotic symbolism. The messianic figure mostly appears as a salvific being, one who comes down for the spiritual redemption of the human soul from the divine realms in the sefirotic system. It is notable that their messianic reading of the sefirot as the hypostatic notions of Torah conveys an imaginative creativity and hermeneutical innovation in the manner in which they change a variety of hidden divine entities into messianic motifs through sefirotic symbolism, and the central mode of theosophical and theurgical expressions. In this context, the messianic images appear both as a combined form of midrashic, mythical, and theosophic concepts formed by the sefirotic symbolism, and, more centrally, as a messianic figure who understands and reveals the secrets of the Torah.146 By this logic, the strategic descriptions of the messianic figures, which appear close to a God-like and salvific image of Torah, strongly create and preserve a spiritualized and psychologized messianism, instead of an apocalyptic messianism. Nevertheless, as Pedaya claimed, the apocalyptic and mythological aspects in Abulafia’s works and the Zohar undeniably appear in their conceptions of cosmos, history, and God, as well as Torah.147 Unlike Scholem, Pedaya investigates a new apocalyptic sense in the kabbalistic sources, which conveys a strong emphasis on a level of praxis and history beyond a theosophic focus.148 In this vein, this examination shows that the Geronese, Abulafian, Zoharic, and Gikatillian traditions convey both apocalyptic messianism and spiritualized (symbolized) messianism. This corroborates a synthesis between an 144 Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 38–39. 145 Idel, KNP, 57; Unlike Scholem, Idel regards personal redemption as a messianic term. Cf. Liebes, Studies in the Zohar, 1–12. 146 Idel, “Torah Ḥadashah,” 58. 147 Pedaya, “The Sixth Millennium,” 60–75; 85–91. 148 Ibid. Cf. Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism, 38–39.

346

Chapter 5

apocalyptic and a spiritualized (symbolized) conception, both of which are intertwined in various kabbalistic traditions. As such, my analysis provides a critical insight into various messianic conceptualizations of the hypostatic notions of Torah, which are intertwined with the philosophical and mystical ideas of their respective historical and ideological contexts. In all, this shows that the messianic images of Torah, in Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions, convey not only historical, apocalyptic, and eschatological features, but also ahistorical, spiritualized, and symbolized ones. Above all, this examination demonstrates that the messianic images variously emerged in the different kabbalistic traditions, including Geronese kabbalah, Abulafia, the Zoharic circle, and Gikatilla. Despite the considerable differences between them, there are recurrent detectable patterns involing the messianic images of Torah. These patterns are dynamically formulated by identifying the messianic images and figures with the hypostatic notions of Torah as symbolic values as part of the sefirotic system in relation to the Torah. As examined earlier, a messianic image, which appears close to the angelic image of Torah, mainly appears as a historical and apocalyptic figure or concept, which is a materialized mediator, and can be achieved through the idea of devekut. By contrast, a messianic image, which appears close to the God-like image of Torah, significantly appears as an eschatological and symbolic figure or concept, which is a spiritualized, symbolized, or hidden mediator, and can be accessed through the unio mystica. This shows that the dual conception of a messianic image, which appears close to both the angelic and God-like images of Torah, prominently emerges in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. This implies that the authors tried to create these messianic images of Torah, which are conjoined with either an angelic mediator or a God-like, hidden performer, as apparatuses for experiencing the divine realms and God, which are accessible by the operations of devekut and unio mystica. This further substantiates that in order to express their religious experiences, they utilized a hermeneutic strategy (i.e., the philosophical allegory and sefirotic symbolism), which connects the infinite divine and finite human intellect through the linguistic tools of the sefirot and in relation to letters of Torah.

Chapter 6

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah from the Second Temple Period through the Middle Ages As noted in the Introduction, following Idel’s methodology of models and his panoramic approach of phenomenology, I investigated the religious phenomena of the three (angelic, God-like, and messianic) images of Torah as mediators between God and human beings. The development of the three images of Torah as a model, as I have traced in this study, transpired from the Second Temple period to the Middle Ages. Following the “two senses of phenomenology” of models, I conducted research combining philological-intertextual analysis and philosophical-theological examination. In accordance with the first sense of the phenomenology of models (i.e., cross-fertilization between various models and traditions), I examined the relationships between the images of Torah in multi-faceted traditions within the history of Jewish thought (Jewish philosophy and mysticism). My examination proved the existence and development of the early forms of the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah as a mediator: an angelic mediator in the Logos-centered tradition, a God-like mediator in the Wisdom-centered tradition, and a messianic mediator which combines the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions. In addition, I have traced, in accordance with the second sense of the phenomenology of models (i.e., subjective impressions), the continuity of the religious experiences of devekut and unio mystica as an inner structure within the Logos-centered (and later Jewish philosophical) tradition and the Wisdom-centered (and later Jewish mystical) tradition throughout the history of Jewish thought. Furthermore, I have identified the particular hermeneutical strategies for expressing the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica within the theological intentions and philosophical frameworks, which eventually formulate the images of Torah manifest within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions from the Second Temple period through the Middle Ages. 1

On the Angelic Image of Torah

As examined earlier, the intertextual, exegetical, and theological relationships between personified Wisdom and Torah in early Jewish sources, especially the

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_009

348

Chapter 6

Wisdom literature, substantiate the interactions between various hypostases that are identified with Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, and the Johannine Logos, within various early Jewish and Christian sources. As examined earlier, the Second Temple and rabbinic period depictions of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah in a son-like and angelic image were echoed by medieval depictions of Metatron and Active Intellect as angelic images of Torah in the Jewish philosophical tradition. As such, the Torah functions as a materialized mediator that connects God and human beings through the idea of devekut. The idea of devekut not only plays a critical role in allowing human beings to connect to the angelic image of Torah as a visual mediator, but also encompasses a possibility of transforming the human soul (or intellect) into an angelic being while still preserving divine transcendence. The angelic image of Torah, in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, is mainly derived from a son-like or angelic description of Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos and memra. Philo’s Logos primarily appears as a son-like and angelic figure mediating between God and human beings, and thereby creates an angelic image of Torah. Philo’s Logos influenced other Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the Johannine Logos, Jesus, and memra, each of which, on the basis of the allegorical hermeneutics, take on the image of an angelic mediator accessible through devekut. Philo’s Logos, which combines Jewish Wisdom and Greek Logos, provides a critical vantage point for understanding the intertextual and theological relationships between the images and activities of personified Wisdom and Incarnate Logos (i.e., Jesus) in the Gospels. As examined earlier, like Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos is allegorically presented, in the Fourth Gospel, in a son-like or angelic image of Torah. As examined earlier, the idea of devekut necessitates a mediator to fill the gap between God and human beings, but still maintain the philosophical framework of divine uniqueness and divine transcendence. This implies that the idea of devekut operates in a hermeneutic mechanism based on the allegorical approach, which formulates a son-like or angelic image in a visualized and materialized form of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. As previously noted, the philosophical allegory, which expounds certain spiritual phenomena and truths by allegorizing concrete biblical images into scientific and universal principles, is used for elucidating the interrelationships between human beings, the creation of the world, and God in the realms of physics and metaphysics. This hermeneutic strategy of allegory activates and formulates an angelic and visualized image of Torah, which serves as a mediator connecting God and human beings, and as the object of noetic union, or devekut, in

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

349

substitution of the transcendent divine who is beyond the possibility of devekut. The idea of devekut to the angelic images of Torah illuminates a particular structure of thought that allows for indirectly experiencing divine transcendence. The angelic image of Torah materialized in a proximity with God allows for the possibility of a mystical experience of the transcendent divine through the idea of devekut on the basis of a sophisticated allegorical rendering of the Logos as angelic beings and Torah within the context of a philosophical framework of divine transcendence. The discussion regarding the angelic images of Torah in the Logos-centered tradition gives critical insight into the developmental process of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah as a mediator. Like Philo’s Logos as an angelic allegorical mediator, the angelic images of Torah appear in the images of Metatron and shekhinah, which are manifest in rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical literature and later in the Jewish philosophical traditions in the Middle Ages. Likewise, Maimonides also allegorically associates the Active Intellect with the biblical concept of angels and the philosophical concept of Torah, and eventually creates an angelic image of Torah. Using this logic, Maimonides explains the idea of devekut to the Active Intellect as a mystical experience. Specifically, it is notable that the philosophical (i.e., allegorical) approach had a huge impact on the formulation of the angelic images of Torah in Abulafia’s conception of the Active Intellect, which could be accessed through devekut. In the realm of medieval Jewish philosophy, the idea of devekut appears not only as a mechanical tool for the conjunction or union between the human intellect and the Active Intellect but also appears crucial in understanding the concept of a mediator between them. In this context, Abulafia, who was influenced by the philosophical and late antique rabbinic traditions, further elaborates the idea of devekut through a larger kabbalistic standpoint and hermeneutic strategy. Abulafia not only associates this idea of devekut with prophecy but also thereby develops his interpretation of the mysteries of the divine names of the Torah. Abulafia deals with the linguistic techniques of achieving the state of devekut, which involve the combinations of the letters of the divine names in the Torah. Abulafia explains an allegorical and semantic relationship between the secrets of maʿaseh merkavah, which correspond to the angelic powers or celestial beings in the cosmological realm, and the inner entities of the letters of the divine names in the Torah. In this manner, Abulafia appears to formulate an angelic image of Torah based in the divine names that are related to the merkavah imagery through linguistic techniques of letter combination and gematriot. On the basis of this logic, Abulafia establishes his theory of the noetic union with the Active Intellect, by identifying

350

Chapter 6

the Active Intellect with Torah through the gematriot, and eventually with the letters of the Tetragrammaton which is part of the merkavah imagery. Through the combination of his philosophical and kabbalistic conceptions of devekut, Abulafia further identifies the concept of Active Intellect with the shekhinah (or malkhut) while creating the angelic images of both the shekhinah and Active Intellect, which is identified with Torah, and thereby producing the angelic image of Torah. Abulafia’s creative and radical approach appears to contradict Maimonides’ non-negotiable principle of the ultimate impossibility of the unity of the human intellect and God. For Abulafia, the state of ecstasy radically means overcoming the boundaries between the human intellect and the Active Intellect, and even God. As examined earlier, this appears similar to the paradigm of Islamic philosophers who allow for the unity of the human intellect and the Active Intellect. Nevertheless, Abulafia’s system still requires a clear distinction between human beings and God that is grounded in an Aristotelian system of the divine transcendence. This proves that, despite a strong desire for the noetic union, i.e., union with the Active Intellect, Abulafia remains faithful to the monotheistic concept as formulated in Maimonidean theology. On the basis of this logic, Abulafia formulates the angelic image of Torah in the concept of Active Intellect as a mediator between human beings and God that can be accessed through devekut to the letters of divine names – especially the Tetragrammaton – of the Torah. In Gikatilla’s early work, Ginnat ʾEgoz, we can also see both a combination between Maimonidean (or Aristotelian) metaphysics and kabbalistic (or Neoplatonic) metaphysics as well as the influence of Abulafia’s ideas of devekut and prophecy. Abulafia’s idea of devekut to the letters of the divine names of the Torah is crucial not only for understanding Gikatilla’s hermeneutical methodology but also for comprehending Gikatilla’s intellectual development regarding an angelic image of Torah in relation to the sefirotic system. Like Abulafia, Gikatilla, in Ginnat ʾEgoz, concretizes the relationship of the merkavah imagery to the four letters of the Tetragrammaton through the idea of devekut. Under the influence of Abulafia’s idea of devekut, which focuses on the ecstatic and prophetic experiences, Gikatilla also identifies the letters of the Tetragrammaton with the Active Intellect (i.e., an angelic being) and with the last sefirah, shekhinah or malkhut. In Gikatilla’s system, allegoresis plays a critical role not only in interpreting maʿaseh merkavah as the cosmological emanative system but also in identifying an angelic being (i.e., Metatron) with the Active Intellect. For instance, in Ginnat ʾEgoz, using philosophical allegory, Gikatilla allegorizes the divine name Elohim as an angelic being (i.e., Metatron or the Active Intellect) who serves as an intermediary between God and nature

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

351

in the creation processes. By this logic, on the basis of the combination of the philosophic and rabbinic conceptions, Gikatilla eventually identifies Metatron with the divine names in the Torah. In this process, the image of the Active Intellect, as an angel who is part of the merkavah imagery and is equivalent with the divine names of Torah, appears, as in Abulafia’s system, as a mediator accessible by devekut. For Gikatilla, beyond Abulafia’s linguistic techniques, which are based on the philosophical allegory, the idea of devekut through the letter combination of the Tetragrammaton has a symbolic dimension related to mystical union and divine unity. Gikatilla’s description of the Tetragrammaton as a non-created being, concealed in the creation from Elohim, also appears to describe a symbolic realm, which is ineffable and unknowable. He thereby creates a particular formula of divine unity that involves the unification between the Active Intellect, Metatron, and the Tetragrammaton. Gikatilla utilizes a sophisticated approach that combines the philosophical allegory and linguistic symbolism, in order to express an inner state of the divine unity and to achieve a state of unio mystica, as well as mystical experiences of the human soul’s immediate contact with the unknowable and inaccessible divine. This corroborates that the conceptualization of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica becomes a philosophically, theologically, and epistemologically bifurcating point between early ecstatic and prophetic kabbalists, such as Abulafia and R. Isaac of Acre, and medieval Jewish philosophers, such as Maimonides. In all, this examination substantiates that the son-like or angelic image of Torah in the Logos-centered hypostatic notions in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods continues in the angelic images of the Active Intellect and sefirah of the shekhinah in the sefirot, which are found in the Jewish philosophical, Abulafian, and Gikatillian traditions in the Middle Ages. 2

On the God-Like Image of Torah

The God-like image of Torah mainly appears in the Jewish Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah in the Jewish mystical tradition in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. As a representative example, personified Wisdom in Proverbs has implications for the dynamics of revelation and concealment of the secrets of the Torah.1 As highlighted earlier, the image of personified Wisdom in Prov 8:22–31 primarily appears as a father or sage with wisdom 1 H. Wolfson, Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973), 2:127–28.

352

Chapter 6

and authority who grew up with God – i.e., who is implicitly connected to a divine-like image in the creation context. The images and activities of personified Wisdom also appear in Proverbs 1, 8, and 9 as a sage or as a master in a banquet. Personified Wisdom, as a hypostatic entity, conveys not only an inner or concealed wisdom but also a revealed practical wisdom. This implies that personified Wisdom symbolically appears as a God-like image, who is present in closest proximity to God in the Jewish Wisdom-centered tradition. This feature can be found in the self-narrative of the personified Women figures of the Wisdom literature (e.g., Wis 7:25–8:1). Similarly, in the rabbinic tradition, in sources such as in Gen. Rab., there is a nexus of personified Wisdom and Torah, which is conveyed in the image of a sage as a mature, heavenly, or authoritative figure teaching the wisdom of the Torah. In this manner, the image of personified Wisdom is symbolically or poetically expressed as a hypostatized Torah. In all, the personification and hypostatization of the mystical concept of wisdom gives a critical insight into the symbolization and mythologization of the concept of Torah as a God-like image. This shows that the personification and mythologization of wisdom requires a process accomplished through a unique literary and hermeneutic strategy that utilizes the idealization and symbolization of the concept of Torah as a God-like image. As examined earlier, in a manner similar to personified Wisdom, the images of Jesus in the Synoptics and shekhinah mainly appear as a God-like figure, who has a relationship with the mystical concepts of Torah in the Wisdom-centered tradition. The image of Jesus in the Synoptics appears to resemble a God-like figure, which implicitly symbolizes God Himself. This is the result of a literary and exegetical strategy that employs symbolism using the poetic and mythic (or anthropomorphic) expressions to describe Jesus as a God-like figure. Unlike the son-like and angelic images of Jesus, as found in the Johannine Logos in the Logos-centered tradition, the images and activities of Jesus in the Synoptics appear analogous to those of personified Wisdom, as a sage or God-like. As examined earlier, this corroborates not only the intertextual and semantic relationships between personified Wisdom and Jesus but also shows the theological and hermeneutical implications (i.e., mythic and anthropomorphic strategy based on the theological intention of the authors) of the personification and hypostatization of wisdom as a sage and a God-like being. In a manner similar to the God-like image of personified Wisdom, the God-like images of Torah also appear in the images of Metatron and shekhinah in mythic and anthropomorphic (or anthropopathic) expressions, which are found in rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical literature and later in the kabbalistic traditions in the Middle Ages. The God-like image of Torah, as a non-visualized mediator, appears in the interactions with the sefirotic system

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

353

through the hermeneutic strategy of the poetic and sefirotic symbolism, which is prominently found in rabbinic and late antique Jewish mystical traditions, and sefirotic symbolism in later medieval kabbalistic traditions. The image of personified Wisdom – ḥokhmah, which emanated from Ein Sof – which is identified with the primordial Torah, appears to be formulated by an exegetical and hermeneutical strategy within a theological and philosophical framework. Above all, the God-like images of Torah are thereby formulated in the sefirotic system as mythic symbols in human language, which reflect the hidden essence of God. As noted earlier, the God-like image mainly appears in the concept and image of ḥokhmah in the sefirotic system. The concept of ḥokhmah conveys not only mythopoetic, symbolic, and metaphysical meaning but also a philosophical and cognitive one.2 This substantiates that the concept of the sefirah of ḥokhmah reflects the interactions between the philosophical Logos and mystical Wisdom. As such it demonstrates the manner in which the Second Temple period Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah developed in the medieval sefirotic system. It is worth noting that, as Wolfson analyzed, the concept of ḥokhmah in the Bahir appears to derive from an internal Hebraic (or mythopoetic) origin, which becomes associated with a Hellenic (or logocentric) element in a mythic and linguistic symbolism.3 As is the case in Philo’s dual conception of Logos and Wisdom, this demonstrates a crucial interplay of two different conceptions and depictions of ḥokhmah.4 This shows that the philosophical conception of the immanent Logos, which is related to the Hellenic depiction of sophia, was gradually assimilated with a Hebraic conception of Wisdom in which Wisdom is identified with Torah in the ancient Jewish mystical tradition, and eventually concretized an inner Hebraic idea of transcendent Wisdom that is expressed through a mythopoeic and sefirotic symbolism.5 2 E. Wolfson, “Hebraic and Hellenic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir,” 170–1. 3 Ibid., 170–1; Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 67, 91–97, 234; Abrams, ed., The Book Bahir, 1–54. 4 E. Wolfson, Along the Path, 187–88; As Wolfson suggests, the demiurgical Logos appears in a philosophic characterization as wisdom, while divine Wisdom appears in the mythically characterized hypostasis of wisdom as part of the interaction between Hellenism and Hebraism. Cf. Scholem, Origins of the Kabbalah, 162–70. 5 For instance, the parable of the daughter as the gift given by the king to his son in the Bahiric texts (Abrams, ed., The Book Bahir, secs. 64–65) explains the emanative process from the upper ḥokhmah (divine Wisdom and masculine potency) to the lower ḥokhmah (shekhinah and feminine potency). Regarding the symbolic identification between Torah and ḥokhmah, which is further associated with the shekhinah as a feminine hypostasis, see the parables and theosophic reworkings in the Book Bahir (secs. 3, 7, 54–55, 63, 93, 142, 162) along with the

354

Chapter 6

The dialectic process of weakening the Hebraic-Hellenic dichotomy substantiates the idea that the concept of ḥokhmah was appropriated and internalized in the kabbalistic (i.e., theosophic) system in the transition from the rabbinic period to the early kabbalistic period in the Middle Ages. The theosophic structures and mystical experiences of the sefirotic system, based on the images of ḥokhmah, are grounded in internal rabbinic tradition. The symbolic and mythopoetic (or Hebraic) approach to the biblical and rabbinic (i.e., aggadic) sources enables an innovative way of merging Hebraism and Hellenism, while maintaining the divine transcendence and incorporeality of God. Above all, under the strong influence of Maimonides’ esotericism and to some extent under the influence of Halevi’s approach, the medieval Jewish mystics created a sophisticated hermeneutical method of combining Jewish philosophical and mystical interpretations. The early and thirteenth-century kabbalists utilized both philosophical allegory and linguistic symbolism regarding the secrets of the Torah to both understand the divine ontology (e.g., divine unity in the sefirotic system) and practical teachings, e.g., a theurgical practice of the commandments of the Torah (i.e., taʿamei mitẓvot). As examined earlier, the Geronese tradition prioritizes a theosophic (i.e., inner-divine) union in the process of the unification of the sefirot, and then the participation and absorption of the human soul with the Godhead (i.e., the devekut and unio mystica) is accomplished through theurgical prayers and mitẓvot. It is notable that the Geronese kabbalists focused on an esoteric meaning of the divine unity mostly inaccessible to human beings, whereas Abulafia appears to neutralize the esoteric characteristic of the complex system of divine powers in the sefirotic system and instead understands them in a human psychological manner. In this sense, Abulafia’s ecstatic kabbalah appears different from the theosophic kabbalah, including that of the Geronese kabbalists, in its understanding of the divine unity in the sefirotic system as well as in its ideas of devekut, unio mystica, and the images of Torah. As also examined earlier, Abulafia and Gikatilla appear to create a synthetic system, which combines an allegorical and mystical (theosophical and theurgical) understanding of the concepts and images of the Torah. Specifically, they thereby foster a new ethos of experiential symbolism. The operation of the devekut for Abulafia is primarily based on an intellectual concept of Torah allegorically identified as Active Intellect. Abulafia’s concept of noetic union, which is based on Maimonides’s rabbinic and aggadic motifs (e.g., b. B. Bat. 16b). The mythopoetic and sefirotic symbolism synthesizes the transcendent (and masculine) and the immanent (and feminine) elements. The symbolic and kabbalistic exegesis regarding divine unity significantly appears in the Jewish mystical and kabbalistic sources.

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

355

notion of eschatological union, describes the path toward intellectual perfection and the acquisition of the immortality of the human intellect. In this process, Abulafia attempts to achieve the ideal of devekut, i.e., a state of unio mystica of the human intellect becoming one with the Active Intellect, by utilizing the linguistic techniques, which implicitly identify the letters of divine names in the Torah with the divine unity of the sefirotic system. As explicated earlier, through his methodology, which combines the philosophical and kabbalistic conceptions of devekut, Abulafia also connects the Active Intellect to the sefirah, keter in the sefirotic system while creating the divine-like image of the Active Intellect, which is identical with Torah, and thereby producing a God-like image of Torah.6 Through this process, we can see that Abulafia’s idea of devekut is radicalized into a noetic union with God, i.e., achieving a state of unio mystica, which significantly influenced ecstatic kabbalah and later Jewish mystical traditions. Especially in Abulafia’s linguistic paradigm, the concept of Torah appears as an absorbing being, which encompasses the corporeal and spiritual in the essence of the letters of the Torah. The inner structure of language in the letters of the Torah serves as a crucial instrument for explaining aspects of the cosmogonic process. At the same time, this understanding of the letters of the Torah also serves to narrow the gap between God and the primordial Torah by connecting the letters and the sefirot. Gikatilla’s linguistic technique and his ideas of devekut and unio mystica appear similar to those Abulafia. Gikatilla plays a critical role in generating a God-like image of Torah as part of the sefirotic system by employing linguistic symbolism in interpreting the letters of the Torah. In Ginnat ʾEgoz, Gikatilla combines an ecstatic and philosophical conception based on the linguistic techniques with a theosophical conception, thereby forging an integrative and broader hermeneutic system. As previously examined, in Ginnat ʾEgoz and Shaʿarei ʾOrah, the idea of devekut allows for a completely harmonious divine unity by integrating the Torah with the sefirot (especially shekhinah and ḥokhmah). Gikatilla also utilizes symbolism for the explanation of the process of emanation and to describe the connection between the sefirot, as well as for the interpretation of the esoteric topics of maʿaseh bereshit and maʿaseh merkavah. Gikatilla first describes in the creation of the world, by means of the emanation overflowing below to the spring of shekhinah, the final stage within the sefirot which he represents as a demiurge responsible for the creation. As examined earlier, the images of shekhinah, which we examined in the Second Temple and rabbinic sources as well as in late antique Jewish mystical literature, now appear as part of the sefirotic system in kabbalistic sources, 6 Idel, Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic, 59, 278; Afterman, And they Shall be One Flesh, 221.

356

Chapter 6

where shekhinah is depicted not only as a symbolic manifestation of the “indwelling” of the divine presence in the world but is also identified as a hypostatic notion of Torah. This implies that like the upper ḥokhmah, shekhinah, also known as the lower ḥokhmah, is similarly symbolized as a mystical or God-like image of Torah. Furthermore, Gikatilla in Shaʿarei ʾOrah develops a symbolic mode and exegesis to explain the sefirot, including the sefirah of ḥokhmah. In his discussion of cosmogony and cosmology, he figures ḥokhmah as the yod, which he understands as the beginning point of creation in a hierarchical theory of emanation. The images of ḥokhmah not only appear in closest proximity to the highest sefirah, keter but also appear to have an ontological connection with Ein Sof. Gikatilla, in this context, highlights manner in which ḥokhmah embraces and unites all other sefirot to Ein Sof. The second sefirah, ḥokhmah, which interconnects the sefirot with Ein Sof as the locus of divine unity, also extends its divine power and realms to the created world through the emanative process of the sefirotic system – a process which is incomprehensible rationally. Through the theme of the emergence of yod, that is, ḥokhmah as the beginning in the creation, Gikatilla also describes the relationships of the yod as the sefirah, ḥokhmah to the Tetragrammaton, and thereby turns it into an intra-divine mediator with a God-like image of primordial Torah, which is, at the same time, identified with personified Wisdom on the basis of the biblical and kabbalistic interpretations. Taken together, this substantiates that ḥokhmah is absorbed into a God-like being as a linguistic entity symbolized by the letter yod, and it becomes the hypostatization of the Torah itself. On the basis of this theory, like the Geronese kabbalists, Gikatilla places special significance on the ultimate restoration of the unity of the sefirot, which are intended to be in a state of perfect unity (symbolically a state of a sexual union). The interconnectivity and divine unity of the sefirot does not guarantee a consistent relationship between divine infinity and the finite world of human beings. In this context, Gikatilla, in Shaʿarei ʾOrah, radically describes a metaphysical connection between God and human beings by making a symbolic and metaphoric nexus between them. By this logic, Gikatilla elaborates the mystical experiences of unio mystica with one aspect of the Godhead, the sefirah of ḥokhmah. This allows the mystic to participate in the divine unity. In Shaʿarei ʾOrah, he utilizes the creative power of linguistic techniques, similar to the ones he employed in Ginnat ʾEgoz and in a manner similar to Abulafia’s linguistic techniques and his idea of devekut. At the same time, he maximizes the mystical and infinite power of language by identifying the letters of the Torah, conceived as sefirot, and God Himself. He thereby creates a connection and even identification between the finite human soul and the infinite of the living God through linguistic and kabbalistic symbolism. Specifically, Gikatilla

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

357

attempts to experience the divine reality directly, i.e., God Himself as a linguistic entity, which is manifest in the letters and texts of the Torah, without a mediator. He does this by employing kabbalistic symbolism which allows for devekut and unio mystica to God Himself.7 The eternal nature and power of language activates a transformative process blurring the boundary between the finite human and the infinite divine leading into an inner mystical experience. Nonetheless, Gikatilla’s system ultimately presupposes divine transcendence instead of the divine immanence that removes the distinction between God and human beings. For Gikatilla, a separation between God and the world remains, although the creation of the world can be explained by the emanative process of the infinite divine actions, which unifies divine infinity and the finite world. In all, Gikatilla places particular emphasis on divine unity and harmony in the sefirotic system in terms of a theurgical-theosophical dimension and then shows the possibility of an ultimate union of the human soul with God realized in the ideal of devekut, i.e., a state of unio mystica, while, nevertheless, maintaining divine transcendence. On the basis of this innovative theory, the mystical concept of Torah as a God-like image is absorbed into God Himself through the dynamics of the sefirotic system. The God-like Torah functions as an organic link between the human world and the secrets of God. In all, this examination shows that a God-like image of Torah mainly appears in the image of ḥokhmah, establishing the unity of the sefirotic system, and is the site of the mystical experiences of unio mystica to the sefirah of ḥokhmah. 3

On the Messianic Image of Torah

As examined earlier, the primitive forms of the messianic images of Torah, which emerge from the interactions between the Logos-centered and the Wisdom-centered traditions in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, appear in all of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos, the Johannine Logos, Jesus, memra, and shekhinah. The messianic images of Torah reappear in the descriptions of a historical messianic figure, Jesus, who synthesizes the rabbinic, philosophical, and mystical features, and embodies eschatological salvation. As previously discussed, the messianic figures in the Second Temple sources and contexts are deeply interlocked with a particular historical and ideological context. These messianic figures were further developed by the hermeneutic innovations in rabbinic tradition into a personified and hypostatized form that is identified with Torah. As emphasized earlier, the messianic images 7 Idel, KNP, 146–53.

358

Chapter 6

of Torah, which were implicitly present in the Greek Logos-centered and the Jewish Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, continued in the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, such as the Active Intellect and the sefirot in the medieval Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. They later reemerged in a new combined form that developed from the dynamic interrelationships between the angelic image of Torah as a visual mediator and the God-like image of Torah as a non-visual mediator in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions of the Middle Ages. This shows that the primitive forms of the messianic images of Torah were dynamically developed into their full-fledged and diverse forms, combining the rabbinic tradition and the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. It is worth noting that the messianic images of Torah were methodically devised and developed in a particular hermeneutical system that combines philosophical allegory and linguistic symbolism throughout the history of Jewish philosophy and mysticism. Through these allegorical and symbolic apparatuses, the messianic images of Torah repeatedly continued to emerge in a framework that combined Jewish mystical and philosophical traditions, thus appearing as a synthetic form that connects the angelic and God-like images of Torah. This shows that the messianic image and figure mainly influenced by the Greek Logos-centered tradition is similar to the angelic image of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions, such as Philo’s Logos and Incarnate Logos, while the messianic image and figure influenced by the Jewish Wisdom-centered tradition appears close to a God-like image of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions, such as personified Wisdom and the sefirot. In the first place, the messianic images of Torah, influenced by the Logoscentered tradition, mainly appear to be related to an angelic mediator, which a human can reach through devekut, that is by aspiring to a mystical and salvific experience of the transcendent divine that is achieved through cleaving to the messianic figure who is a mediator between human beings and God. As examined earlier, the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as personified Wisdom, Philo’s Logos, Incarnate Jesus, and memra, appear as a combined form of the allegorical angelic and messianic images of Torah. Like Philo’s Logos, we can see that the angelic or son-like images of the Johannine Logos and of memra and shekhinah are allegorized as a messianic figure, insofar as they are combined with messianic notions, such as “the Son of God” (e.g., Jn 11:27, 20:31), that are involved in the eschatological salvation. This substantiates that the messianic image of Torah mainly appears in a synthetic form of angelic and messianic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Philo’s Logos and the Johannine Logos.

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

359

Specifically, as noted earlier, the messianic image of Torah in Philo’s Logos, which is an allegorical designator for a historical messianic figure, appears in a combined form of the historical, biblical, and rabbinic images of the Messiah and the image of the Logos as an angelic mediator. The messianic image of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah appears as an object and apparatus for the devekut, which connects God and human beings through a particular hermeneutic strategy. This feature explicitly can be found in the concept and image of the Active Intellect, which is manifest in the medieval Jewish philosophical tradition and sources, such as the works of Maimonides, Abulafia, R. Isaac of Arce, and the early Gikatilla. We have seen that the messianic image of the Active Intellect in relation to Torah, in Abulafia’s system, which is close to the son-like and angelic images of Philo’s Logos, appears in a combined form of the philosophical and rabbinic hypostatic notions of Torah, such as Metatron and shekhinah. The messianic image of Torah as the Active Intellect in Abulafia’s system is profoundly related to the idea of devekut, which, following Maimonides, leads to eschatological noetic union through the system of the Active Intellect and to intellection. Through his linguistic and hermeneutic strategies, Abulafia explains an apotheotic experience of the human soul, i.e., experiencing along with a move from the lower Messiah (shekhinah) to the supernal Messiah as a transcendent savior. In the process of this experience the human Messiah becomes identified with the lower Messiah, i.e., shekhinah. Abulafia’s conception of the apotheotic experience, which conveys messianic and eschatological significance, presupposes a dualistic concept of the Messiah: the human messiah figure who is messianized through the ideal of devekut, and a supernal Messiah, which can be described as the divine presence which takes on the form of a salvific figure. On the basis of this theory, Abulafia utilizes linguistic techniques, such as gematria and the combinations of the letters of divine names in the letters of the Torah, for his idiosyncratic idea of devekut, which allows for the identification between the Active Intellect as an angelic being and the human Messiah, and thereby messianizes the human intellect of an individual when it is in a state of the devekut to the Active Intellect. This, in other words, is Abulafia’s self-messianization. This implies that Abulafia attempts to legitimate his theory regarding the highest level of his prophetic and mystical experiences by mobilizing the exegetical and interpretive methods. As examined earlier, Abulafia’s noetic messianism implies an intellectual perfection accomplished through devkeut and noetic union. Specifically, in Abulafia’s self-messianization, a messianic image of Torah dramatically appears not only in the messianic image of the Active Intellect but also in Abulafia’s intellect as he is spiritualized and

360

Chapter 6

hypostatized by the Active Intellect. By this logic, the messianic image of Torah appears not only as a visualized angelic mediator but also appears close to a salvific, and eschatological image, who is hypostatized through the ideas of devekut and noetic union. As emphasized earlier, Abulafia’s ecstatic-prophetic experience based on the noetic union theory is profoundly connected to the messianic thought and system of the early Gikatilla. Unlike Ginnat ʾEgoz, which is influenced by Abulafia’s philosophical approach, we have seen a synthesis of philosophic, theosophic, and theurgic conceptions, which Gikatilla uses to conceptualize his messianic ideas, in Shaʿarei Ẓedek.8 As Idel notes, Gikatilla, in Shaʿarei Ẓedek, conceptualizes the messianic ideas by utilizing the whole range of linguistic and sefirotic systems.9 This also reflects a crucial phase in the evolution of Gikatilla’s theological system, since it involves the combination of philosophical, theurgical, theosophical, and even eschatological aspects. Specifically, as examined above, Gikatilla’s bi-directional conception of the theurgical activities and images of ẓaddik implies a new way of combining theosophical and theurgical systems with a mystical and experiential focus, which are essentially based on the infinite and mystical natures of the language of the Torah. As examined earlier, in a manner similar to Abulafia and de Leon, a bidirectional conception of the theurgical activities also appears in Gikatilla’s system. The conception of bidirectional (ascending and descending) emanation in relation to the images of ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek are interlocked with the images of ẓaddik attached to shekhinah in ascending order and binah in descending order. In particular, in a manner similar to Abulafia’s dual conception of devekut of the Messiah, we have seen, in Shaʿarei Ẓedek, two patterns of the devekut of ẓaddik (i.e., yesod). The first pattern is the connection to the last sefirah, malkhut (or shekhinah), with yesod which appears in ascending order. The second pattern is the connection to the third sefirah, binah with yesod, which appears in descending order.10 As examined earlier, in the first pattern, the sefirah ẓaddik, attached to the last sefirah, malkhut (or shekhinah), eventually 8

Gottlieb, “The Concluding Portion of R. Joseph Chiqatella’s Shaʿarei Ẕedeq,” Tarbiz 39.4 (1970): 359–89 (Hebrew); Idel, KNP, 63–73. As Idel and Gottlieb analyzed, we can infer a transitional point in Shaʿarei Ẓedek from Abulafia’s ecstatic (or philosophic) and prophetic focus to Gikatilla’s theosophic-theurgic focus. Cf. Yadin, “Theosophy and Kabbalistic Writings,” 1–2; Afterman, And they Shall be One Flesh, 125–29. 9 Idel, Messianic Mystics, 103, 109. There are other symbolic valences of a messianic figure relating to the sefirotic system (e.g., netzah and hod, and yesod as well as keter). 10 Shaʿarei Ẓedek, 46 (shaʿar 8); Idel, Messianic Mystics, 103–16; Idel, “Torah Ḥadashah,” 58. The ẓaddik in the first pattern, which is related to New Torah and a supernal Messiah (king-Messiah), similarly appears in the Zohar, as well as in Sheqel ha-Qodesh.

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

361

accomplishes the unification with the highest sefirot in ascending order. As emphasized earlier, Gikatilla’s mythic and anthropomorphic strategies, based on the linguistic and sefirotic symbolism, associate the divine ẓaddik with the human ẓaddik. On the basis of this logic, the human ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek appears close to a visual (i.e., angelic) image, when attached to shekhinah (or malkhut) in ascending order, in the context of devekut. This is similar to an idea that appears as part of Abulafia’s noetic union theory. These images of the human ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek convey both the messianic and angelic images of the Logos or Active Intellect as a mediator, which is identified with Torah, and thereby produce both a messianic and angelic (visualized) image of Torah. The previous examination also shows that, unlike the messianic image that is closer to an angelic medium that connects God and human beings through devekut, the messianic image of Torah, influenced by the Wisdom-centered tradition, appears close to a God-like image as a non-visual mediator reached through unio mystica. As discussed above, we have seen that the images of personified Wisdom and Torah in the creation context appear as God-like images, which are almost identical to God, in the Jewish Wisdom tradition of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Philo’s Logos, which mainly appears as the angelic image of an allegorical mediator, also appears as the God-like image of an abstract and symbolic figure teaching the Torah in a symbolic allusion to a messianic era. In addition, the messianic image close to a God-like image can be found in the images and activities of personified Wisdom and Jesus in the Synoptics, where they appear not only as close to a sage or master teaching the Torah but also as a messianic figure who performs a salvific action. For instance, the symbolical narratives of personified Wisdom in “to my bread” and “my mixed wine” in Prov 9 are quite similar to the rhetoric of Jesus in the metaphor of “bread” (e.g., Jn 6:35) and “water” (e.g., Jn 4:13–14), which symbolizes “flesh” and “blood” of Jesus himself, and to his prophetic sayings in the Last Supper in the Gospels. The rhetorical similarity between the activities of personified Wisdom and Jesus of giving “bread or meat” and “water or wine” demonstrates a salvific conception (i.e., the ultimate purpose of a divine salvation) of giving life, truth, and wisdom. In addition, we have seen that the messianic ideas in the Wisdom-centered tradition in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods were dynamically developed in the kabbalistic sefirotic system, which was grounded in rabbinic and medieval mystical sources, such as Hekhalot, Sefer Yetsirah, and Sefer ha-Bahir. The images of Torah mainly identified with the higher sefirot shekhinah, ḥokhmah or keter in the sefirotic system appear as a personified or hypostatized God-like image and exist in intrinsic intimacy with God. For instance, as highlighted earlier, a messianic image of Torah, which is related to the image of

362

Chapter 6

primordial Torah in an equivalent status and unity with God, appears close to a God-like image of ḥokhmah. This shows that the messianic images of Torah are intertwined with a God-like image of the hypostatic notions of Torah in relation to the higher sefirot, in the medieval Jewish mystical tradition. As noted earlier, for Abulafia and R. Isaac of Acre, the priestly messianic figure, combined with the first sefirah, keter, conveys a redemptive image of the Messiah, who not only pronounces the Tetragrammaton for the blessing and atonement of the Jewish people, but also accomplishes a salvific mission through the teachings of a New Torah of the Messiah. Abulafia thereby connects a messianic figure to the features of a New Torah insofar as the God-like interpreter teaches the New Torah. Abulafia, as a messianic figure himself, attempts to present himself as an authentic interpreter of the New Torah and as a messianic mediator between God and human beings, a status which he achieves through the idea of noetic union understood as unio mystica. This shows an exegetically combined form of the image of a priestly messianic figure and a God-like image of Torah. On the basis of this logic, we can infer that the messianic image of Torah, which appears close to a God-like image, is dynamically formulated in relation to the idea of unio mystica to the hypostatic notions of Torah in the medieval Jewish mystical tradition. It is notable that Gikatilla, in his mature thought, in a manner similar to Abulafia’s conception of the messianic image of Torah as close to a God-like image, combines the messianic and God-like images of Torah. Gikatilla’s view is intertwined with the theurgic and theosophic aspects of the medieval Jewish mystical tradition. As noted earlier, Gikatilla theorizes his messianic conception through theurgical activities (e.g., mitzvot and prayer to the divine names) in a theosophical system, while involving the messianic images of Torah in the divine unity characterized by the harmonization of the sefirot through sefirotic symbolism. The theurgical actions of the ẓaddik, attached to binah for the union of yesod and shekhinah in descending order, reflect a redemptive role in unifying the sefirotic system with shekhinah in the sense of a sexual symbolism. Unlike the first pattern that connects malkhut (or shekhinah) with yesod, which appears in ascending order, as mentioned earlier, the second pattern that connects binah with yesod, appears in descending order. Through the mythic strategies, the human ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek is symbolically connected to the divine-like image of ẓaddik, as the sefirah yesod, which is attached to binah. This implies that Gikatilla conceptualizes two kinds of messianic images of Torah through the two patterns of devekut, which are formulated by the descending and ascending process through the theurgical activities of the ẓaddik. On the basis of this logic, in a manner similar to the works of Geronese

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

363

kabbalists and Zoharic literature, the divine ẓaddik attached to binah in descending order also conveys a redemptive image when he unites with shekhinah (or malkhut), a union that is described with sexual symbolism. This shows that in Shaʿarei Ẓedek, Gikatilla creates a messianic image of the ẓaddik, which conveys both a salvific and God-like characteristic as a result of an ideal model of human behaviors (i.e., theurgical actions), and in a theophanic and redemptive action for the ultimate vision of a messianic era, in which the secrets of the Torah will be revealed. On the basis of this theory, we can infer that the salvific and messianic image of the ẓaddik, formulated by the sefirotic symbolism, is related to a God-like image of Torah, which is absorbed into God Himself without a visual mediator between God and human beings. In fact, the messianic image eventually appears as a mystical and abstract figure implicitly linked to the other sefirot in a state of divine unity. This corroborates that the messianic image of the ẓaddik in Shaʿarei Ẓedek is profoundly associated with the God-like image of Torah as an invisible and hidden mediator that reveals an ultimate purpose of messianism, and eventually represents God Himself. In all, we can infer that, through the two patterns of the devekut of the ẓaddik, Gikatilla tried to create the dual conception of the messianic images of Torah, which are associated with both the angelic and God-like images of Torah, utilizing the concepts of the human ascent to achieve the ideal of devekut and the divine descent to provide salvation. In summary, the messianic images of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah mainly appear in combination with an angelic image as a mediator between human beings and God through the allegorical approach and thereby divine transcendence and uniqueness is preserved in the Jewish philosophical tradition. By contrast, the messianic images of the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah mainly appear in connection with a God-like image as a hidden mediator through the linguistic symbolism and thereby divine immanence is to some extent assumed in the Jewish mystical tradition. This shows that the messianic images of Torah appear to be formulated not only by the interactions with the angelic and God-like images of the hypostatic notions of Torah in relation to the sefirot but also by the hermeneutic strategies (i.e., allegory and symbolism) along with the ideas of devekut and unio mystica. As examined earlier, this also demonstrates that the messianic images of the hypostatic notions of Torah are dynamically formulated by the combination of the rabbinic, philosophical, and mystical concepts of Torah in the sefirot and the messianic images of the hypostatic notions as mediating apparatuses for implicitly expressing the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica. In addition, the particular hermeneutical strategies, based on the theological intentions of the authors, contribute to not only revealing the reality of the

364

Chapter 6

divine realm (the relationship between the hypostatic notions in the sefirotic system, which correspond to the biblical concepts of Torah and God), but also to connecting the messianic concepts of the hypostatic notions of Torah in the sefirotic system to the eschatological and messianic ideas, such as an abstract God-like figure or a messianic era. 4

Reconsidering Idel’s Panoramic Approach: The Images of Torah as Model and Phenomenology

In a comprehensive manner, in keeping with Idel’s panoramic approach, this study presents the phenomenology of the images of Torah in a wide swath of Jewish thought, including Second Temple period, rabbinic, Jewish philosophical, and mystical traditions. As noted earlier, this study principally follows Idel’s synthetic approach towards historical criticism and phenomenology, which is based on a methodological eclecticism that utilizes various methodologies (e.g., historical, philological, psychological, and phenomenological), and welcomes new perspectives from various areas of Jewish philosophical and mystical thought and experience. While it is important to acknowledge, as Idel himself does, the limitation of the methodology of models in holistically interpreting religious systems of thought, I focused on the phenomenological significance of the images of Torah as a novel “model” of models. In this sense, I tried to contrast the various religious phenomena in diverse models and traditions to the three images of Torah as a novel model through “relativization” and “distanciation.”11 This study, thus, encompasses not only the historical and intertextual examinations of the three images of Torah but also the phenomenological analysis of religious experiences, which provides a critical insight into grasping the core foundations of the images’ formulation and development. This study also provides the philological and intertextual evidence to not only demonstrate the existence and continuity of the history of ideas of the images of Torah but also to describe the mystical, psychological, and experiential aspects of the three images of Torah, which are central in the religious experiences and perspectives of the Rabbis, Jewish philosophers, and mystics. This study further elucidates the historical, literary, theological, and philosophical backgrounds, which are related to the formulation of the three images of Torah and offers an account of the history of an inner dynamic and recurring set of religious images. 11

See Idel, Ascension on High, 11–13; Abrams, “Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism,” 81–90.

Phenomenological Analysis of Images of Torah

365

Through this examination based on these theoretical principles, I evaluated in detail the phenomenological features of the three images of Torah by analyzing the dynamic relationships between them, the idea of devekut and unio mystica, and the hermeneutic strategies used throughout the history of Jewish philosophy and mysticism. I have also shown that the complex hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah emerge in the interactions of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. In the course of my analysis, I compared the primitive forms of the three images of Torah as they appear in Jewish philosophical and mystical texts with the various images of the hypostatic notions that appear in Christian texts. My examination further demonstrates not only the centrality of Torah, within the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions but also the development of the primitive forms of the images of Torah from the Second Temple period through the rabbinic and medieval periods. I thereby corroborated the continuity between the primitive forms of the three (angelic, God-like, and messianic) images of Torah as they emerge in the Greek Logos-centered tradition and the Jewish Wisdom-centered tradition of the Second Temple and rabbinic periods, and their full-fledged forms as they are found in the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions of the Middle Ages. Rather than a clear-cut demarcation between the development of the Logoscentered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, I have found that extensive interactions between them can be traced in the Jewish mystical and kabbalistic traditions and sources. The Wisdom-centered hypostatic notion of Torah, through its profound interactions with the Logos-centered hypostatic notion, appears in the Jewish philosophical traditions and sources, while the Logos-centered hypostatic notion of Torah, through its interactions with the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notion, appears in the Jewish mystical and kabbalistic traditions and sources. Moreover, the concepts and images of Torah are based on differing hermeneutic approaches. Their functions as mediators between the divine essence and human beings allow for different levels of devekut and unio mystica. By analyzing the development of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages, I showed the continuity of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica in their interactions with the images of Torah. Through this examination, the critical features of the three images of Torah examined earlier creatively and continuously appear in the interactions and relationships between the Logos-centered and the Wisdom-centered traditions and, as such, reflect an inner continuity of the core ideas of the three (angelic, messianic, and God-like) images of Torah in the model throughout the history of Jewish thought. In this sense, I tried to investigate the structures

366

Chapter 6

of ideas in the model of the three images of Torah and their interrelationships, not only by avoiding subjectively and reductively conceptualizing them as a preconceived system based on the regnant scholarly perspectives but also by not artificially imposing a particular hermeneutic system (e.g., a historical and psychological analysis). It is notable that the primitive forms of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica, in relation to the hypostatic notions of Torah, emerge as a recurring phenomenon in the structure of thought of Jewish philosophers and mystics who formulate the images of Torah. This demonstrates that the ideas of devekut and unio mystica play a critical role as a “structure” of thought, which was implicitly and dynamically present from ancient sources to medieval sources. Additionally, we have also seen some elements (e.g., patterns and orders), which would function as building blocks for the model in this research. For instance, Gikatilla, according to his intellectual interests, shows a pattern and order, i.e., starting with the formation of an angelic image of Torah by using the philosophical terms and concepts of the hypostatic notions in the sefirot, and then moving forward to the formulation of a God-like image of Torah by using the mystical terms and concepts in the sefirot. In addition, we can see that the three images of Torah phenomenologically appear to be interlocked in an orderly way with Idel’s account of three models (i.e., ecstatic, theosophic-theurgic, and magical) of kabbalah in the Jewish mystical traditions. As shown earlier, in the two patterns of devekut, the idea of devekut in the ascending order prominently functions along with an angelic, visualized, and personified image of Torah as a mediator in order to achieve a state of unio mystica, whereas the idea of devekut in the descending order mainly functions along with a God-like, non-visualized, and hypostatized image of Torah in order to achieve a state of unio mystica. This shows the dynamic interactions and relationships between the descent position (descending order) and the ascent position (ascending order) in the theosophic and theurgic systems along with the ideas of devekut and unio mystica. This examination shows that the images of Torah as a model corroborate not only the preexisting models, such as the three models of kabbalah outlined by Idel, but they are also developed into a more comprehensive model by synthesizing and absorbing older and newer organizations (i.e., structures, patterns, and orders) of thought and practice. I hope to offer, in a separate study, a fuller analysis of the phenomenological features of the ascending order and descending order while analyzing, in greater detail, the relationships and operations within the structures and patterns of thought in order to discover a broader picture of the phenomenology of the three images of Torah.

Conclusion A critical implication of this research is that one model can contribute to, or be developed into, a more comprehensive model through the sophisticated syntheses of the historical, thematic, semantic, and phenomenological features of the images of Torah. This research thereby demonstrates the features of various hermeneutical systems (rabbinic, philosophical, and Jewish mystical) related to the ideas of devekut and unio mystica in order to corroborate a missing link connecting ancient, rabbinic, and medieval Jewish sources. In this sense, as concluding remarks, I will further summarize some critical ideas and elements of this examination. The idea of devekut to the (mainly Logos-centered) hypostatic notions of Torah, implies the human soul or intellect’s mystical experience of God through the angelic image of Torah as visible mediator. The angelic image of Torah is mainly revealed in the context of devekut to the Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. The biblical idea of devekut primarily means the human soul’s direct attachment to God. However, as examined earlier, this idea of devekut necessitates an angelic image of the (Logos-centered) hypostatic notions of Torah as a visible mediator between God and human beings. Accordingly, the gap between the human intellect and God remains in this idea of devekut, and God also remains as a transcendent and non-integrated being. By contrast, the idea of unio mystica means a more radical concept in which the human soul is directly connected and unified with God without a mediator. The idea of unio mystica to the (mainly Wisdom-centered) hypostatic notions of Torah, mainly implies the human soul or intellect’s mystical, unitive, and absorptive experience of God. In this context, a state of unio mystica seems to be possible without a mediator, and, accordingly, the border between God and the human soul radically seems to be blurred. However, as examined earlier, strictly speaking, the idea of unio mystica, especially in the thought of medieval Jewish mystics, is also supposed to be united with God through the God-like image of Torah as an invisible and hidden mediator in a mythic and anthropomorphic strategy based on a sefirotic symbolism. In this sense, even in the idea of unio mystica, the boundaries between transcendent God and human soul can be maintained, while allowing for the human soul or intellect’s unitive and absorptive experience with/within God in the sense of divine immanence. In addition, the idea of devekut to the messianic image of Torah primarily means the human soul or intellect’s mystical experience of God, who has a messianic and salvific image, through the messianic image of Torah. As examined

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_010

368

Conclusion

earlier, in the process of devekut, the human soul’s experiences God through the prism of the messianic images, which are combined with an angelic or a God-like image of Torah. The messianic image, which appears close to an angelic image of Torah, is formulated in the operation of the devekut to an exegetically and conceptually combined form of the angelic and messianic images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. In this case, the human soul experiences God through an angelic and messianic image of Torah. By contrast, the messianic image, which appears close to a God-like image of Torah, strongly appears in the operation of the unio mystica as a conceptually and hermeneutically combined form of the God-like and messianic images of the hypostatic notions of Torah. In this case, the human soul experiences God through a God-like and messianic image of Torah. Specifically, as noted earlier, Abulafia develops the ideas of devekut and unio mystica into a unique form realized in himself through a messianic image of Torah, which combines the angelic and God-like images of Torah. The intertextual, theological, and philosophical nexuses between the hypostatic notions of Torah elucidate not only the hermeneutical, theological, and philosophical backgrounds of these early Jewish and Christian sources but also the developmental process of the primitive forms of three images of Torah in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. These nexuses demonstrate how the Torah-centered conception reflected in the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah was centralized in rabbinic tradition, as well as how it played an influential role in formulating the three images of Torah throughout the history of Jewish thought. As previously examined, the intertextual and theological examinations of the hypostatic notions that are similar to the concept of Torah demonstrate that the primitive forms of the Greek Logos-centered and the Jewish Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah had an important influence on the formation of the three images of Torah, and that the three images of Torah, as a model, were continuously developed in ancient, rabbinic, and medieval Jewish sources. The primitive forms of the three images of Torah, identified as hypostatic entities in the Second Temple period, were, therefore, developed through the innovations of rabbinic exegetical practices and were dynamically developed into their full-fledged forms as a result of the interrelationships between the rabbinic tradition and the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions in the Middle Ages. The particularly significant point of my findings is that all the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah are conceived of in a dualistic (philosophical and mystical) manner, and in accordance with their distinctive conceptual features, the three images of Torah were dynamically formulated by hermeneutic, philosophical, and theological perspectives. It is notable that

Conclusion

369

the hypostatic notions of Torah in the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions are condensed in the sefirotic system in a manner which reflects their interactions and interrelationships. As examined earlier, the interactions and interrelationships between the Wisdom-centered and the Logos-centered hypostatic notions in the highest sefirot (keter, ḥokhmah, and binah) in the Geronese tradition shed light on the dynamic interactions between the lower sefirot in relation to other hypostatic notions of Torah. For instance, the tenth sefirah, malkhut, dynamically interacts with both the Logos-centered hypostatic notions (such as Logos, Metatron, and Active Intellect) and the Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions (such as personified Wisdom, ḥokhmah). As emphasized by these investigations, the God-like image of the Wisdomcentered hypostatic notions (such as shekhinah) mainly creates a God-like image of Torah which appears in the Wisdom-centered tradition, whereas the angelic image of the Logos-centered hypostatic notions (such as Metatron and Active Intellect) mainly generates an angelic image of Torah, which appears in the Logos-centered tradition. These angelic and God-like images of Torah emerge as the full-fledged forms in the sefirot as a total system comprised of the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. The messianic image of Torah is a combination of the angelic and God-like images, that is Logos and Wisdom-centered, hypostatic notions of Torah, that emerges from the dynamic interaction of the Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. These features eventually show the priority and centrality of Torah over the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah. The priority and centrality of Torah, buttressed by both the Wisdom and Logos traditions, plays a critical role not only as the source of Wisdom (i.e., ḥokhmah) and Logos (i.e., binah) on behalf of God but also as an ultimate agent of Wisdom and Logos, which encompasses all the sefirot as the hypostatic notions, and gives them meaningful functions in the sefirotic and metaphysical realms. It is notable that the sefirah of ḥokhmah plays a role as a route in transitioning from an incomprehensible realm into a comprehensible realm, while the sefirah of binah plays a role as a pathway for transforming the comprehensible realms into the expressible, visualized, and materialized realms. The dynamic relationships and functions of Wisdom and Logos appear in the tenth sefirah, malkhut, at the lowest level of sefirotic system, which dynamically interacts with the Wisdom-centered (e.g., shekhinah) and Logos-centered (e.g., Metatron) hypostatic notions of Torah, as examined earlier. This demonstrates the process of transitioning from an invisible and immaterialized realm, i.e., the highest sefirot (keter, ḥokhmah, and binah), which are identified as a God-like image of Torah, to a visualized and materialized realm accessible to the rational and

370

Conclusion

imaginative faculties, which are identified as the angelic image of Torah. By this logic, the messianic image of Torah, which appears as a combination of the angelic and God-like images of Torah, emerges from the dynamic interactions between the visible and invisible realms. This proves that the sefirot are a unified totality and a full-fledged form of the hypostatic notions of Torah. It further shows the roles of the sefirot as mediators that bridges the gaps between God and human beings. Ultimately, the medieval kabbalists intended to explain a particular mechanism of the divine realm that would reflect the interactions between Logos and Wisdom, but at the same time would express the preexistence and superiority of Torah over Logos and Wisdom. This also shows that they conceptualized the sefirot as a system partially produced through the interactions between the Wisdom-centered and Logos-centered hypostatic notions of Torah, which already existed in ancient and late antique sources since the Second Temple and rabbinic periods. Specifically, the model of three images of Torah substantiates an inner continuity of the core ideas and elements, which continuously appear in the interactions and relationships between the Logos-centered and the Wisdom-centered traditions throughout the history of Jewish thought. This proves not only the continuity and development of the ideas of devekut and unio mystica and the concept of a mediator in relation to the images of Torah, manifest from their primitive forms in the Second Temple and rabbinic periods to their full-fledged forms in medieval kabbalistic sources, but also the continuity of the Logos and Wisdom-centered traditions reflected in the hypostatic notions throughout the history of Jewish thought. This substantiates that the phenomena of the images of Torah emerges from the systematic functions and complicated collaborations of the core factors, i.e., the ideas of devekut and unio mystica, which operate along with each image of Torah as a mediator through the hermeneutic strategies, which were manifest among the rabbinic, Jewish philosophical and mystical traditions. Above all, my examination authenticates that the images of Torah, in the thought of the authors, appear as critical apparatuses for the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica. This further elucidates how the concepts and images of Torah are variously formulated and based on differing hermeneutic approaches with regard to the ideas of the devekut and unio mystica and how they function as mediators between the divine essence and human beings in the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered traditions. As examined earlier, an angelic image of Torah as a mediator is mainly formulated in the context of a noetic union (the human intellect’s conjunction with the Active Intellect) as described in the Jewish philosophical tradition. The idea of devekut (i.e., a noetic union) necessitates a visualized mediator of an angelic image of Torah, such as Logos as an allegorical apparatus, which fills

Conclusion

371

the gap between God and human beings within a philosophical framework that preserves divine transcendence. By contrast, a God-like image of Torah mainly appears in the context of a unitive and absorptive experience (i.e., unio mystica). The idea of unio mystica necessitates an invisible (i.e., linguistic and symbolized) mediator (or seemingly no mediator) of a God-like image of Torah, such as Wisdom as a mythic and symbolic apparatus, which allows for the direct access to God. The idea of unio mystica involves human participation and absorption into the unity between the symbolically described sefirot of the Jewish mystical tradition. This position has a strong tendency towards the divine immanence even if it still maintains the distinction between God and human beings, within a theosophically and philosophically combined framework of divine immanence and divine transcendence. This corroborates that the three images of Torah as a mediator were dynamically formulated by the authors’ theological intentions and philosophical frameworks to explain the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica to the divine realms. This further substantiates that the hermeneutical strategies (i.e., allegory and symbolism) implicitly play a critical role in formulating the three images of Torah as hypostatic mediators in the hypostatic notions, which were manifest within the Logos-centered and the Wisdom-centered traditions from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. This shows that the mystical experiences of devekut and unio mystica were developed in accord with the hermeneutical systems of philosophical allegory and linguistic symbolism of the various Rabbis, philosophers, and mystics. This also corroborates that these mystical experiences play critical roles not only in associating the hypostatic notions of Torah with the divine entities but also in formulating the angelic and God-like images, which represent the divine realms and God. This also proves that they tried not only to understand and explain the relationship between God and human beings through various literary and exegetical strategies based on philosophical allegory and kabbalistic symbolism but also to experience and achieve an ideal of devekut, i.e., noetic union or unio mystica, to the hypostatic notions of Torah. Consequently, this phenomenological analysis details not only the interrelationships of the three images of Torah but also offers explicit evidence and continuity of an inner and channel transmitting the shared core ideas and elements, which manifest among the ancient Jewish, rabbinic, Jewish philosophical, and mystical traditions from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. This also provides a critical insight into not only the development of various religious phenomena and traditions but also the phenomenology of God, Torah, and various hypostatic notions as mediators, which were recurrent from the ancient (Second Temple) sources through the

372

Conclusion

medieval kabbalistic sources. Above all, it is phenomenologically notable that the images of Torah appear as mediators connecting God and human beings and for making God available to human comprehension, even while the divine essence remains unchanged. This study authenticates that the images of Torah, which were deeply rooted in their sub-consciousness, were significantly used for explaining the mystery and secrets of God and Torah and of an inner-divine mechanism to the human world. The images of Torah convey a theological intention to reveal, in an elaborate way, the secrets and centrality of Torah in the various hypostatic notions which were manifest throughout the history of religious thought and Jewish thought. As discussed earlier, this examination also elucidates the literary and hermeneutic methodologies that were implicitly inherited from the views of ancient philosophers and mystics, who formulated the three images of Torah as mediators through the mechanism of devekut and unio mystica. The three images of Torah provide a vital foundation in understanding the theological and philosophical implications of the divine unity and divine essence, which are expressible through the literary and hermeneutic strategies. Specifically, the concrete examples and characteristics of the primitive forms of the three images of Torah formulated by the ideas of devekut and unio mystica provide not only a critical understanding of the hermeneutic methodologies (i.e., allegory and symbolism) employed by the rabbinic, Jewish philosophical, and mystical traditions throughout the history of Jewish thought, but also elucidate evidence of their continuity and development throughout the history of Judeo-Christian thought. In addition, the religious phenomena of the images of Torah illustrate not only the implicit existence of the concepts of Torah in the similar religious phenomena of other religions but also offer more comprehensive evidence of the developmental process of the concepts and images of Torah through the comparative analyses of other religions. This, therefore, corroborates that the three images of Torah can serve not only as a more extensive and comprehensive model but also as one which can be confirmed and clarified by the recurring ideas derived from different religious systems (i.e., Christian traditions) and their texts and thoughts. Consequently, the further phenomenological examination of the three images of Torah will provide a groundbreaking insight for unfolding a new horizon of creative perspectives in understanding and reinterpreting the conceptions of the images of God and mediators. It will provide not only an innovative theological implication of the three images of Torah, which illuminates a flexible approach to scriptural interpretations from various creative theological perspectives but also a new and more advanced understanding and theological reflection regarding the monotheistic nature of Jewish philosophy and

Conclusion

373

Jewish mysticism. Eventually, it will not only broaden the understanding of the continuity of an inner channel of the shared ideas regarding the three images of Torah and the recurrence of the related religious phenomena continuing from ancient Jewish thought through contemporary Jewish thought but also will shed light on an innovative theological and philosophical implication of the phenomenology of Torah in Jewish philosophy and Jewish mysticism.

Afterword In a future study, it would be worthwhile to examine and discover more implications of the operations of devekut and unio mystica and the hermeneutic strategies, which formulate the images of Torah in various religious traditions from a new and broader perspective through an in-depth examination of the related sources in terms of a panoramic approach. It also would be meaningful to examine more specific evidence of the developmental process of the hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah in rabbinic midrash and Jewish philosophical and mystical sources while discovering the similar religious phenomena and features of the three images of Torah throughout the history of Jewish mysticism and philosophy in accordance with Idel’s panoramic approach. This future study would also elucidate the significance of the further study of the phenomenology of Torah and the dynamic development of the three images of Torah by reexamining their theological and phenomenological implications on a deeper and broader level. Such an examination also could illuminate the evidence of the dynamic interactions of rabbinic, Jewish mystical, and philosophical traditions in the discourse of the development of modern Jewish thought, e.g., the ideological, philosophical, and theological debates between the two intellectual traditions of Hasidim and Mitnagedim regarding the concepts and images of Torah. In addition, it is important to remark that the Torah, which is a linguistic and scriptural concept, is related to the concept of God as a universal idea in the philosophical and mystical traditions of multiple religious traditions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and others. In this sense, it would be interesting and meaningful to reappraise the similarities and differences between the three images of Torah described here and related phenomena in other religions. As explained earlier, we can see that the images of Torah were continued in various forms as the Logos-centered and Wisdom-centered hypostatic notions linked to the concept of Torah throughout the trajectories of the history of Jewish thought, just as Philo’s Logos was continued in the Johannine Logos of the Gospel of John and the Church Fathers, and, as Wolfson notes, passed on to the idea of the Active Intellect in Islamic philosophy, and later medieval Jewish philosophy.1 This substantiates that these phenomenological features regarding the three images of Torah constantly reappeared in various Christian, Jewish, and even Islamic sources from the Second Temple and rabbinic periods through the Middle Ages. Specifically, the interfaces and relationships of the three images of Torah, which arose commonly within both 1 H. Wolfson, Philo, 2:457.

© Jeong Mun Heo, 2023 | doi:10.1163/9789004543225_011

376

Afterword

early Jewish and Christian sources, provide critical insight into the religious and theological interactions between rabbinic Judaism and early Christianity. In this regard, the three images of Torah as a model, which is based on this comprehensive concept of Torah, appears to be critical and useful for explicating the philosophical and mystical concepts of God, the teachings regarding the divine nature (which is the essential content of all religions), and the concept of a mediator between human beings and the divine in other religions. This approach would allow us not only to reevaluate their significance and profound understanding of each religious tradition and belief system in the history of religious thought but also to recognize the limitations of each system as well as to refine an attitude of scholarly receptivity to various religious phenomena in other traditions, beliefs, and cultures from a broader perspective. In this regard, a consecutive and in-depth examination of the phenomenology of three images of Torah will provide not only a broader and deeper understanding of the images of Torah in terms of the diversity of hermeneutic and interpretative methods but also a more analytical and comprehensive foundation for the understanding of the philosophical and theological relationships between Judaism and other religions. For instance, the earlier examination of the three images of Torah embodied in the images of Jesus in relation to the hypostatic notions gives a critical insight not only into their developmental process, in the contexts of nascent Christianity and Late Antiquity but also into their relationships in the history of Jewish and Christian thought. This implies that the three images of Torah, as a model, can also be found in the images of the hypostatic notions of Torah, which appear in the history of the philosophical and mystical traditions of Christianity. Specifically, the relationship of the three images of Torah to the images of Jesus, which were manifest in specific forms in the Gospels, provides not only critical insight into the background of the Trinitarian doctrine which involves three persons and three images of God but also provides a creative perspective from which to consider Christian theological doctrines about the divine nature – that is of reevaluating the manner in which the three images of Torah intertwined with three aspects and images of the Trinity in a symbolic and hermeneutic form. This provides an important foundation for understanding the theological and philosophical structures of the divine essence, despite the epistemological limitation and impossibility of appreciating the divine essence. In this regard, the phenomenology of the three images of Torah could play a critical role in orienting the direction of the theological interpretations of Christianity, while offering a creative perspective for their religious teachings, e.g., especially for the concept of the Trinity emphasized in the Christian theology.

Afterword

377

Furthermore, this approach will lead us not only to a deeper and broader understanding of religious thought, which can reconcile the seemingly conflicting views formulated by a superficial level of one-sided interpretations, but also to an authentic way of appreciating the essence of various religious experiences of different religions and traditions in the spirit of mutual respect. It will also provide a critical insight into a variety of perspectives regarding the images of Torah and God and their functions and roles in developing a doctrinal flexibility and affordability into religious thoughts and systems. This implies that an appropriate and comprehensive understanding of the three images of Torah can assist in not only avoiding a doctrinal rigidity by embracing the possibility of a multifaceted understanding and interpretation of the divine essence but also overcoming the limits of religious doctrines, as well as ensuring the diversity and autonomy of religious beliefs.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer Sitrei Torah. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer ʾOr ha-Sekhel. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. ʾImrei Shefer. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 1999. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Ḥayyei ha-Nefesh. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2011. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Mezuraf ha-Sekhel and Sefer ha-ʾOt. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Ner ʾElohim. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. ʾOẓar ʿEden Ganuz. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2000. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer ha-Ḥesheq. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2002. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer ha-Geʾulah. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer ha-Melamed. Jerusalem: n.p., 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer Haftarah. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer ha-Tzeruf. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2003. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer Ḥayyei ha-ʿOlam ha-Ba‌ʾ. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Shemot. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2001. Abulafia, Abraham ben Samuel. Ve-zot le-Yehudah. Jerusalem: A. Gros, 2009. Abraham bar Hiyya. Sefer Megillat ha-Megalleh. Edited by A. Poznanski and J. Guttmann. Berlin: Verein Mekitsei Nirdamim, 1924. Abraham bar Hiyya. Hegyon ha-Nefesch ha-Atzuvah. Edited by Geoffrey Wigoder. Jerusalem: Mosad Byalik, 1971. Aristotle. De Anima (= On the Soul). Translated by Walter. S. Hett. LCL 288. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959. Aristotle. Metaphysics. Vol. II. Translated by Hugh Tredennick and George Cyril Armstrong. LCL 287. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935. Asher ben David. “Sefer ha-Yihud.” Pages 49–145 in His Complete Works and Studies in His Kabbalistic Thought, Including the Commentaries to the Account of Creation by the Kabbalists of Provence and Gerona. Edited by Daniel Abrams. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1996. Azriel ben Menahem of Gerona. Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadoth. Edited by Isaiah Tishby. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1982. Azriel ben Menahem of Gerona. Kabbalistic Works of R. Azriel of Girona. Edited by Oded Porat. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2019.

Bibliography

379

Azriel ben Menahem of Gerona. Perush le-Sefer Yesirah (= Commentary on Sefer Yetsirah). Pages 451–61 in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban. Edited by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967. Charlesworth, James H., Frank M. Cross et al., trans. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994–2011. Ezra ben Solomon of Gerona. Perush le-Shir ha-Shirim (= Commentary on the Song of Songs). Pages 476–518 in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban. Edited by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967. Eleazar ben Judah of Worms. Sodei Razaya: Sefer Alfa Beta = Secrets of Raziel: Book of the Alphabet. Edited by Fabrizio Del Tin. Trieste, Italy: eUniversity Pub., 2018. Frank, Richard M. The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach (Sinai Ar. 155. IXth–Xth Cent.). Louvain: Corpus SCO, 1974. Gikatilla, Joseph ben Abraham. Ginnat ʾEgoz. Hanau: n.p., 1605. Gikatilla, Joseph ben Abraham. Shaʿar ha-Niqqud. Printed in Sefer ʾArzei Levanon. Venice: Giovanni di Gara, 1601. Gikatilla, Joseph ben Abraham. Shaʿarei Ẓedek. Cracow: Druck and Verlag von Fisher & Deutscher, 1881. Gikatilla, Joseph ben Abraham. Shaʿarei ʾOrah. 2 vols. Edited by Yosef (Joseph) Ben Shlomo. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1970. Gikatilla, Joseph ben Abraham. Shaʿarei ʾOrah (Gates of Light). Sacred Literature Series. Translated by Avi Weinstein. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994. Isaac ben Shmuel of Acre. Sefer Meʾirat ʿEinayim. Edited by Amos Goldreich. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1984. Jacob ben Sheshet. “Sefer ha-ʾEmunah we-ha-Bittahon.” Pages 342–448 in vol. 2 of Kitvei ha-Ramban. Edited by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1967. Klein, Michael L., ed. and trans. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch According to Their Extant Sources. Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1980. Moses ben Shem Tov de Leon. Sefer Sheqel ha-Qodesh. Edited by Charles Mopsik (Hebrew). Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1966. Maimon, Moses ben (Maimonides). The Guide of the Perplexed. Translated by Shlomo Pines. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Maimon, Moses ben (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah (= The Code of Maimonides): The Book of Judges. Bk. 14. Translated by Abraham M. Hershman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1949. Maimon, Moses ben (Maimonides). Mishneh Torah: The Book of Knowledge. Edited by Moses Hyamson. Jerusalem: Boys Town, 1962. Maimon, Moses ben (Maimonides). Maimonides’ Commentary on the Mishnah: Tractate Sanhedrin. Translated by Fred Rosner. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1981.

380

Bibliography

Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides). Kitvei ha-Ramban: A Collection of Nahmanides’ Speculative Treatises. 2 vols. Edited by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1963. Moses ben Nahman (Nahmanides). Commentary on the Torah. Translated and edited by Charles B. Chavel. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1959. Moses ben Shem Tob de Leon. Or Zaruʿa. Edited by Alexander Altmann. Qovez ʿal Yad, n.s. 9 (1980): 219–93. Moses, ha-Darshan, and Chanoch Albeck. Midrash Bereshit Rabati, Nosad ʿal Sifro Shel R. Mosheh Ha-Darshan. Jerusalem: n.s., 1966. Nathanael Ben Fayyumi. The Bustan Al-ukul. Translated and edited by David Levine. Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias Press, 2009. Neusner, Jacob. Genesis Rabbah: The Judaic Commentary to the Book of Genesis: A New American Translation. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1985. Philo of Alexandria. Philo. Translated by Ralph Marcus, Francis H. Colson, and George H. Whitaker. 12 vols. LCL. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1929–68. Philo of Alexandria. The Contemplative Life. The Giants, and Selections. Translated by David Winston. Classics of Western Spirituality. New York: Paulist Press, 1981. Plotinus, and Enneads. Translated by Arthur H. Armstrong. LCL 440–445. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015. Simon, Maurice, and Isidore Epstein. The Babylonian Talmud. New York: Traditional Press, 1979. Solomon Ibn Gabirol. The Kingly Crown (= Keter Malkhut). Translated and edited by Bernard Lewis and Andrew L. Gluck. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 2003. Sefer ha-Ḥesheq. Commentary on Seventy Names of Metatron by R. Nehemiah ben Shlomo. Edited by Y. M. Epstein. Lemberg: L. Kugel, Lewin. S, 1865. Sefer ha-Zohar: Zohar to the Pentateuch. Edited by Reuven Margalioth. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964. Sefer Midrash Rabah: ʿal Ḥamishah Ḥumshe Torah Ve-ʿal Ḥamesh Megilot. Edited by Issachar Berman ben Naphtali, ha-Kohen, Isaac Aizik, of Zidiṭshov, Yehudah Tsevi, and Menaḥem Mendl ben Asher Yeshaʿy. Monsi, NY: Hotsa‌ʾat Bi-mesilah naʿaleh 779, 2019. Sefer Zohar Ḥadash to the Pentateuch, Megillot, and Tikkunim. Edited by Reuven Margalioth. Jerusalem: Mosad Harav Kook, 1964. The Book Bahir. Edited by Daniel Abrams (Hebrew). Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 1994. Tiqqunei Zohar. Edited by Margaliot, Reuven. Jerusalem: Mosad ha-Rav Kook, 1978. Vermès, Géza. The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English. London: Penguin Books, 2004.

Bibliography



381

Secondary Sources

Abelson, Joshua. Jewish Mysticism: An Introduction to the Kabbalah. New York: SepherHermon Press, 1981. Abelson, Joshua. “Maimonides on the Jewish Creed” (a translation of Maimonides’ introduction to Perek Helek in his Commentary on the Mishnah). JQR 19.1 (1906): 24–58. Abelson, Joshua. The Immanence of God in Rabbinic Literature. London: MacMillan, 1912. Aberbach, Moses, and Bernard Grossfeld. Targum Onkelos to Genesis: A Critical Analysis Together with an English Translation of the Text. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1982. Abrams, Daniel. “Phenomenology of Jewish Mysticism: Moshe Idel’s Methodology in Perspective.” In Kabbalah 20.215 (2009): 7–146. Abrams, Daniel. “The Literary Emergence of Esotericism in German Pietism.” Shofar 12 (1994): 67–85. Abrams, Daniel. Ten Psychoanalytic Aphorisms on Kabbalah. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011. Adams, Samuel L. Proverbs, Book of. Page 1103 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2010. Adler, Reinhard. Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, http://www.bibelwissenschaft.de/online -bibeln/ueber-die-online-bibeln/. Adriana, Destro and Mauro Pesce. “The Gospel of John and the Community Rule of Qumran: A Comparison of Systems.” Pages 201–29 in Judaism in Late Antiquity Vol. 2: The Judaism of Qumran: A Systemic Reading of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Edited by Alan J. Avery-Peck, Jacob Neusner, and Bruce D. Chilton. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Afterman, Adam. And they Shall be One Flesh: On the Language of Mystical Union in Judaism. Leiden: Brill, 2016. Afterman, Adam. “From Philo to Plotinus: The Emergence of Mystical Union.” JR 93.2 (2013): 177–96. Afterman, Adam. Devequt: Mystical Intimacy in Medieval Jewish Thought (Hebrew). Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2011. Aitken, Kenneth T. “Proverbs.” The Daily Study Bible Series. Louidville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1986. Al Farabi. On the Perfect State (Mabadi Ara Ahl Al-Madinat Al-Fadilah). Edited by Richard Walzer. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Al Farabi. Political Regime (Kitāb al-siyāsa al-madaniyya) or The Treatise on the Principles of Beings. Edited by Fady M. Najjar. Beirut: Imprimerie Catholique, 1964. Al Farabi. “On the Intellect.” In Classical Arabic Philosophy: An Anthology of Sources. Translated by Jon McGinnis, and David C. Reisman. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2007.

382

Bibliography

Albright, William F. “The Supposed Babylonian Derivation of the Logos.” JBL 39 (1920): 143–51. Albright, William F., and C. S. Mann. Matthew. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1971. Aldihisi, Sabah. “The Story of Creation in the Mandaean Holy Book in the Ginza Rba.” PhD diss. University College London, 2008. Alexander, Philip S. “3 Enoch and the Talmud.” JSJ 18.1 (1987): 40–68. Alexander, Philip S. “Comparing Merkavah Mysticism and Gnosticism: An Essay in Method.” JJS 35.1 (1984): 1–18. Alexander, Philip S. “From Son of Adam to a Second God: Transformation of the Biblical Enoch.” Pages 87–122 in Biblical Figures Outside the Bible. Edited by Michael E. Stone and Theodore A. Bergren. Harrisburg, PA: Trinity, 1998. Alexander, Philip S. “The Historical Setting of the Hebrew Book of Enoch.” JJS 28 (1977): 156–80. Alexandru, Stefan. Aristotle’s Metaphysics Lambda: Annotated Critical Edition Based upon a Systematic Investigation of Greek, Latin, Arabic and Hebrew Sources. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Allegro, John M., and Arnold. A. Anderson. Qumrân Cave 4: I (4Q158–4Q186). DJD 5. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1968. Allison, Dale C. The New Moses: A Matthean Typology. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. Alon, Gedalia. The Jews in Their Land in the Talmudic Age, 70–640 C.E. Edited by Gershon Levi. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1989. Altmann, Alexander. Faces of Judaism. Edited by A. Shapira (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1983. Altmann, Alexander. “Gnostic Themes in Rabbinic Cosmology.” Pages 19–32 in Essays in Honour of the Very Rev. Dr. J. H. Hertz. Edited by Isidore Epstein, Ephraim Levine, and Cecil Roth. London: Goldston, 1944. Altmann, Alexander. “‘Homo Imago Dei’ in Jewish and Christian Theology.” JR 48.3 (1968): 235–59. Altmann, Alexander. “3 Enoch and the Talmud.” JSJ 18.1 (1987): 40–68. Altmann, Alexander. “Ibn Bajja on Man’s Ultimate Felicity.” Pages 73–107 in Studies in Religious Philosophy and Mysticism. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1969. Altmann, Alexander. “Moses de Leon’s Sefer ʾOr Zaruʿa: Introduction, Critical Text, and Notes.” Qovetz al Yad 9 (1980): 219–93 (Hebrew). Altmann, Alexander. “Problems of Research in Jewish Neoplatonism.” Tarbiz 27 (1958): 501–7 (Hebrew). Altmann, Alexander. “The Gnostic Background of the Rabbinic Adam Legends.” JQR 35 (1944–1945): 371–91. Amir, Yohoshua. “The Messianic Idea in Hellenistic Judaism.” Mahanayim 124 (1970): 54–67 (Hebrew).

Bibliography

383

Anderson, Gary A. “The Interpretation of Gen 1:1 in the Targums.” CBQ 52 (1990): 21–29. Anthonioz, Stéphanie, and Cécile Dogniez. Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà, Orient et Méditerranée 35. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Anton, John P. “Some Logical Aspects of the Concept of Hypostasis in Plotinus.” The Review of Metaphysics 31 (2) (1977): 258–71. Ashton, John. Understanding the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Arndt, William F. A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3rd ed. Edited by Walter Bauer and Frederick W. Danker. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2000. Aune, David. “Oral Tradition and the Aphorisms of Jesus.” Pages 256–302 in Jesus, Gospel Tradition and Paul in the Context of Jewish and Greco-Roman Antiquity: Collected Essays II. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Bar-Asher, Avishai. “New Fragments from ‘Sefer ʾOr Zaruʿa’ and ‘Sefer Ha-Neʿlam.’” Tarbiz 83.4 (2015): 635–42. Barret, Charles K. “Jews and Judaizers in the Epistles of Ignatius.” Pages 133–58 in Jews, Greeks and Christians: Religious Cultures in Late Antiquity, Essays in Honor of W. D. Davies. Leiden: Brill, 1976. Barthélemy, Dominique, Józef T. Milik, and Roland De Vaux, eds. Qumran Cave 1. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997. Beattie, Derek R. G., and Martin J. McNamara. The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context. JSOTSup 166. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Behr, John, ed. and trans. Origen: On First Principles. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017. Belkin, Samuel. “Philo and the Zohar.” JJS 10 (1959): 23–44, 113–35. Bennema, Cornelis. “The Strands of Wisdom Tradition in Intertestamental Judaism: Origins, Developments, and Characteristics.” Tyndale Bulletin 52.1 (2001): 61–82. Ben-Sasson, Haim H. A History of the Jewish People. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press., 2002. Berger, Abraham. “The Messianic Self-Consciousness of Abraham Abulafia: A Tentative Evaluation.” Pages 55–62 in Essays on Jewish Life and Thought: Presented in Honor of Salo Wittmayer Baron. Edited by Joseph L. Blau, Philip Friedman, Arthur Hertzberg, and Isaac Mendelsohn. New York: Columbia University Press, 1959. Berger, David. “Three Typological Themes in Early Jewish Messianism: Messiah Son of Joseph, Rabbinic Calculations, and the Figure of Armilus.” AJS Review 10 (2): 141–64. Bietenhard, Hans, and Wolfgang Haase. “Logos-Theologie im Rabbinat. Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Worte Gottes im rabbinischen Schrifttum.” Religion (Judentum: Allgemeines; palästinisches Judentum [Forts.]) (1979): 580–618. Blickstein, Shlomo. “Between Philosophy and Mysticism: A Study of the PhilosophicalQabbalistic Writings of Joseph Gikatilla.” PhD diss. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1983.

384

Bibliography

Blumenthal, David R. “Maimonides’ Intellectualist Mysticism and the Superiority of the Prophecy of Moses.” Studies in Medieval Culture 10 (1981): 51–67. Blumenthal, David R. “Maimonides’ Philosophic Mysticism.” Pages 85–109 in David R. Blumenthal: Living with God and Humanity. Leiden: Brill, 2014. Bockmuehl, Markus N. A. Redemption and Resistance: The Messianic Hopes of Jews and Christians in Antiquity. Edited by James C. Paget. London: T&T Clark, 2008. Bokser, Baruch M. “Changing Views of Passover and the Meaning of Redemption according to the Palestinian Talmud.” AJS Review 10.1 (1985): 1–18. Bokser, Baruch M. “Messianism, the Exodus Pattern, and Early Rabbinic Judaism.” Pages 239–58 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth et al. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Bokser, Baruch M. “Rabbinic Responses to Catastrophe: From Continuity to Discontinuity.” Proceedings of the American Academy for Jewish Research 50 (1983): 47–50. Bonitz, Hermann. Index to Aristoteles. Berolini: G. Reimer, 1831. Bonnard, Pierre. La sagesse en personne annoncée et venue: Jésus Christ. Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1966. Borgen, Peder. “Philo of Alexandria as Exegete.” Pages 114–43 in The Ancient Period: A History of Biblical Interpretation. Edited by Alan J. Hauser and Duane F. Watson. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2003. Borgen, Peder. “Observation on the Midrashic Character of John 6.” ZNW 54 (1963): 232–40. Borgen, Peder et al. The Philo Index: A Complete Greek Word Index to the Philo’s Works. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Borsch, Frederick H. The Son of Man in Myth and History. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1967. Boyarin, Daniel. “An Exchange on the Mashal: Rhetoric and Interpretation – the Case of Nimshal.” Prooftexts 5 (1985): 269–76. Boyarin, Daniel. “Beyond Judaisms: Metatron and the Divine Polymorphy of Ancient Judaism.” JSJ 41.3 (2010): 323–65. Boyarin, Daniel. Border Lines: The Partition of Judeo-Christianity. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania, 2004. Boyarin, Daniel. Intertextuality and the Reading of Midrash. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990. Boyarin, Daniel. “Logos, a Jewish Word: John’s Prologue as Midrash.” Pages 546–48 in The Jewish Annotated New Testament. Edited by Amy J. Levine and Marc Z. Brettler. New York: Oxford University Press, 2011. Boyarin, Daniel. “The Gospel of the Memra: Jewish Binitarianism and the Prologue to John.” HTR 94.3 (2001): 243–84.

Bibliography

385

Bowker, John W. The Targums and Rabbinic Literature: An Introduction to Jewish Interpretations of Scripture. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969. Box, George H. “The Idea of Intermediation in Jewish Theology: A Note on Memra and Shekinah.” JQR 23.2 (1932): 103–19. Box, George H. and Joseph I. Landsman. The Apocalypse of Abraham. Translations of Early Documents. Series 1, Palestinian Jewish Texts (Pre-Rabbinic) 10. London: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1918. Brant, Jo-Ann A. John. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. Braslavy, Sara K. “Bible Commentary.” Pages 245–72 in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides. Edited by Kenneth Seeskin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Braude, William G., trans. Pesikta Rabbati. London; New Haven: Yale University Press, 1968. Breech, James and Amos N. Wilder. Jesus’ Parables and the War of Myths: Essays on Imagination in the Scripture. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1982. Brody, Hayim. “Shire Meshulam ben Shelomo Dapiera.” Studies of the Research Institute for Hebrew Poetry in Jerusalem 4 (1938): 1–117. Brody, Seth L. “Human Hands Dwell in Heavenly Heights: Contemplative Ascent and Theurgic Power in Thirteenth Century Kabbalah.” Pages 123–58 in Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics, and Typologies. Edited by Robert A. Herrera. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Brooke, George J. Exegesis at Qumran: 4QFlorilegium in its Jewish Context. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1985. Brooke, George J. “Biblical Interpretation in the Wisdom Texts from Qumran.” Pages 201–20 in The Wisdom texts from Qumran and the Development of Sapiential Thought. Leuven: Leuven University Press, Uitgeverij Peeters, 2002. Brown, Raymond E. The Gospel According to John. Anchor Bible. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1966. Budge, E. A. Wallis. The Gods of the Egyptians: Or, Studies in Egyptian Mythology. Chicago, IL: Open Court Pub., 1904. Bullard, Roger A. The Hypostasis of the Archons: The Coptic Text with Translation and Commentary. 1970. Repr., Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2012. Bultmann, Rudolf. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Oxford: B. Blackwell, 1971. Burke, Kenneth. “Four Master Tropes.” The Kenyon Review 3.4 (1941): 421–38. Burrus, Virginia. “Creatio Ex Libidine: Reading Ancient Logos Differently.” Pages 141–56 in Derrida and Religion: Other Testaments. Edited by Yvonne Sherwood and Kevin Hart. New York: Routledge, 2005. Burstein, Stanley M. The Babyloniaca of Berossus. Malibu: Undena Publications, 1978. Burney, Charles F. The Aramaic Origin of the Fourth Gospel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1922.

386

Bibliography

Bynum, Caroline W. Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages. Berkeley; LA: University of California Press, 1984. Byrne, Brendan. ‘Sons of God’ – ‘Seed of Abraham’ – A Study of the Idea of the Sonship of God of all Christians in Paul Against the Jewish Background. PhD diss. Rome: Biblical institute 1979. Cady, Susan. Wisdom’s Feast: Sophia in Study and Celebration. Edited by Marian Ronan and Hal Taussig. Kansas City, MO: Sheed & Ward, 1996. Caplice, Richard J. Background of Old Testament History: Mesopotamian Texts. Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1982. Cassirer, Ernst. The Myth of the State. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1967. Cazelles, Henri. “Ahiqar, Umman, and Amun, and Biblical Wisdom Texts.” Pages 45–55 in Solving Riddles and Untying Knots: Biblical, Epigraphic, and Semitic Studies in Honor of Jonas C. Greenfield. Edited by Ziony Zevit, Seymour Gitin, and Michael Sokoloff. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1995. Charlesworth, James H. ed. The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. “From Messianology to Christology: Problems and Prospects.” Pages 3–35 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Charlesworth, James H. “The Jewish Roots of Christology: The Discovery of the Hypostatic Voice.” Scottish Journal of Theology 39.1 (1986): 19–41. Charlesworth, James H. and Frank M. Cross. The Dead Sea Scrolls: Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Texts with English Translations. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1994–2011. Charlesworth, James H. “The Fourth Evangelist and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Assessing Trends over Nearly Sixty Years.” Pages 161–82 in John, Qumran, and the Dead Sea Scrolls: Sixty Years of Discovery and Debate. Edited by Tom Thatcher. Atlanta: SBL, 2011. Chesnutt, Randall D. “Wisdom of Solomon.” Page 1243 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2010. Chester, Andrew. Divine Revelation and Divine Titles in the Pentateuchal Targumim. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1986. Chilton, Bruce D. Judaic Approaches to the Gospels. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Chilton, Bruce D. Targumic Approaches to the Gospels: Essays in the Mutual Definition of Judaism and Christianity. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1986. Chilton, Bruce D. The Glory of Israel: The Theology and Provenience of the Isaiah Targum. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1983. Chilton, Bruce D. The Isaiah Targum: Introduction, Translation, Apparatus and Notes. Aramaic Bible 11. Wilmington Delaware: Michael Glazier, 1987.

Bibliography

387

Chilton, Bruce D. “Recent and Prospective Discussion of Memra.” Pages 119–37 in From Ancient Israel to Modern Judaism: Intellect in Quest of Understanding. Edited by Jacob Neusner. BJS 173. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Charlesworth, James H., and R. Alan Culpepper. “Odes of Solomon and the Gospel of John.” CBQ 35.3 (1973): 298–322. Clarke, Ernest G. Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Deuteronomy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1998. Clifford, Richard J. “Proverbs 1–9 as Instruction for a Young Man and for ‘Everyman.’” Pages 129–42 in When the Morning Stars Sang. Edited by Scott C. Jones, Christine R. Yoder, and Choon L. Seow. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2018. Clifford, Richard J. et al. “Woman Wisdom in the Book of Proverbs.” Pages 61–72 in Biblische Theologie und gesellschaftlicher Wandel: Für Norbert Lohfink SJ. Edited by Georg Braulik, Walter Gross, and Sean McEvenue. Freiburg: Herder, 1993. Clifford, Richard J. “Proverbs 9: A Suggested Ugaritic Parallel.” VT 25 (1975): 298–306. Clifford, Richard J. Proverbs: A Commentary. 1st ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 1999. Clifford, Richard J. The Wisdom Literature. Nashville, TN: Abingdon Press, 1998. Cohen, Boaz. Jewish and Roman Law: A Comparative Study. 2 vols. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1966. Cohen, Martin S. The Shiur Qomah: Liturgy and Theurgy in Pre-Kabbalistic Jewish Mysticism. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 1983. Cohen, Shaye J. D. “The Destruction: From Scripture to Midrash.” Prooftexts 2.1 (1982): 18–39. Cohen, Shaye J. D. From the Maccabees to the Mishnah. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1987. Cohen, Shaye J. D. The Shiur Qomah: Texts and Recensions. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Collins, John J. Between Athens and Jerusalem. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2000. Collins, John J. “The Symbolism of Transcendence in Jewish Apocalyptic.” Biblical Research 19 (1974): 5–22. Costa, José. “Y a-t-il un effacement de la sagesse et du logos dans la littérature rabbinique ancienne?” Pages 319–46 in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà. Edited by Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Crenshaw, James L. Old Testament Wisdom: An Introduction. 3rd ed. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2010. Creuzer, Friedrich. Symbolik Und Mythologie Der Alten Völker, Besonders Der Griechen: in Vorträgen Und Entwürfen. Edited by Franz J. Mone. 2nd ed. Leipzig: Heyer Und Leske, 1816.

388

Bibliography

Cross, Frank M. “Oldest Manuscripts from Qumran.” In Qumran and the History of the Biblical Text. Edited by S. Talmon. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1975. Dahood, Mitchell. “Proverbs 8, 22–31: Translation and Commentary.” CBQ (1968): 512–21. Dal Bo, Federico. “The Theory of ‘Emanation’ in Gikatilla’s Gates of Justice.” JJS 62.1 (2011): 79–104. Dal Bo, Federico. Emanation and Philosophy of Language: An Introduction to Joseph ben Abraham Giqatilla. LA: Cherub Press, 2019. Dalman, Gustaf. The Words of Jesus: Considered in the Light of Post-Biblical Jewish Writings and the Aramaic Language. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902. Dalley, Stephanie. Myths from Mesopotamia: Creation, the Flood, Gilgamesh, and Others. New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Dan, Joseph. “Gershom Scholem and Jewish Messianism.” Pages 73–86 in Gershom Scholem: The Man and His Work. Edited by Paul Mendes-Flohr. Albany, NY: SUNY Press; Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1994. Dan, Joseph. “The Seventy Names of Metatron.” Proceedings of the Eighth World Congress of Jewish Studies, Jerusalem, August 16–21 (1981): 19–23 (Hebrew). Dan, Joseph. Ancient Jewish Mysticism. Tel Aviv: Misrad haBitahon, 1989. Dan, Joseph. “Three phases of the History of the Sefer Yezira.” Frankfurter Judaistische Beiträge 21 (1994): 7–29. Dan, Joseph. Torat ha-Sod shel Ḥasidut Ashkenaz. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1968. Danby, Herbert. The Mishnah: Translated from the Hebrew with Introduction and Brief Explanatory Notes. Oxford University Press; London: Geoffrey Cumberlege, 1933. Daube, David. “Rabbinic Methods of Interpretation and Hellenistic Rhetoric.” HUCA 22 (1949): 239–64. Dauber, Jonathan V. Standing on the Heads of Philosophers: Myth and Philosophy in Early Kabbalah. PhD diss. New York: New York University, 2004. Dauber, Jonathan V. “Competing Approaches to Maimonides in Early Kabbalah.” Pages 57–88 in The Cultures of Maimonideanism: New Approaches to the History of Jewish Thought. Supplements to The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 9. Edited by James T. Robinson. Leiden: Brill, 2009. Dauber, Jonathan V. “‘Pure Thought’ in R. Abraham Bar Hiyya and Early Kabbalah.” JJS 60.2 (2009): 185–201. Davidson, Herbert A. Alfarabi, Avicenna, and Averroes on Intellect: Their Cosmologies, Theories of the Active Intellect, and Theories of Human Intellect. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Davidson, Herbert A. “Alfarabi and Avicenna on Active Intellect.” Viator: Medieval and Renaissance Studies 3 (1972): 109–78. Davidson, Herbert A. “Gersonides on the Material and Active Intellects.” Studies on Gersonides (1992): 195–265.

Bibliography

389

Davidson, Herbert A. “Maimonides on Metaphysical Knowledge.” Pages 49–103 in Maimonidean Studies 3. Edited by Arthur Hyman. New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 1995. Davies, William D. Paul and Rabbinic Judaism: Some Rabbinic Elements in Pauline Theology. 4th ed. Philadelphia, PA: Fortress Press, 1980. Davies, William D. “Reflections on the Spirit in the Mekilta: A Suggestion.” JANESCU 5 (1973): 95–105. Davila, James R. Hekhalot Literature in Translation: Major Texts of Merkavah Mysticism. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Deutsch, Nathaniel. Guardians of the Gate: Angelic Vice Regency in Late Antiquity. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Díez Macho, Alejandro. “El Logos y el Espíritu Santo.” Atlántida 1 (1963): 381–96. Díez Macho, Alejandro. Neophyti 1: Targum Palestinense ms de la Biblioteca Vaticana: edición príncipe, introducción general y versión castellana. Vol. 4. Spain: Editorial CSIC-CSIC Press, 1974. Díez Macho, Alejandro. “The Recently Discovered Palestinian Targum: Its Antiquity and Relationship with the Other Targums.” Pages 222–45 in Congress Volume: Oxford 1959. Leiden: Brill, 1960. Dillon, John M. “The Transcendence of God in Philo: Some Possible Sources.” Center for Hermeneutical Studies 16 (1975): 1–8. Dimant, Devorah. “Dualism at Qumran: New Perspective.” Pages 55–73 in Caves of Enlightenment: Proceedings of the American Schools of Oriental Research Dead Sea Scrolls Jubilee Symposium (1947–1997). Edited by James H. Charlesworth. North R. Hills, TX: BIBAL Press, 1998. Dietrich, Jan. “Die Weisheit Bei Gott: Proverbien 8,30 Aus Religionsgeschichtlicher Perspektive.” Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 129.4 (2017): 583–99. Dodd, Charles H. The Interpretation of the Fourth Gospel. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Dogniez, Cécile. “La personnification de la sagesse dans la LXX des Proverbes.” Pages 107–26 in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà. Edited by Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Dowling, Maurice. “Proverbs 8: 22–31 in the Christology of the Early Fathers.” Perichoresis 8.1 (2010): 47–65. Dunn, James D. G. Christology in the Making: A New Testament Inquiry into the Origins of the Doctrine of the Incarnation. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1996. Dunn, James D. G. The Parting of the Ways: Between Christianity and Judaism and Their Significance for the Character of Christianity. London: SCM; Philadelphia: Trinity, 1991. Edwards, Marion J. “Justin’s Logos and the Word of God.” JECS 3.3 (1995): 262–67.

390

Bibliography

Edwards, Robert G. T. Proverbs 8, Christological Controversies, and the Pre-existence of the Son and Torah in the Third and Fourth Centuries. JSJ 51.1 (2020): 67–96. Elior, Rachel, and Shalom Carmy. The Mystical Origins of Hasidism. Oxford; Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2006. Epp, Eldon J. “Wisdom, Torah, Word: The Johannine Prologue and the Purpose of the Fourth Gospel.” Pages 128–46 in Current Issues in Biblical and Patristic Interpretation: Studies in Honor of Merrill C. Tenney Presented by His Former Students. Edited by Gerald F. Hawthorne. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1975. Evans, Craig A. Ancient Texts for New Testament Studies: A Guide to the Background Literature. Edited by Baker Academic Paperback. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic, 2011. Evans, Craig A. “Messianic Hopes and Messianic Figures in Late Antiquity.” JGRChJ 3 (2006): 9–40. Even-Shmuel, Yehuda. ed., Midreshei Geʾulah: Chapters in Jewish Apocalypse from the Closure of the Talmud until the Early Sixth Century (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Bialik Institute, 1954. Faierstein, Morris. “God’s Need for Commandments in Medieval Kabbalah.” Conservative Judaism 36 (1982): 45–59. Fakhry, Majid. Al-Fārābi: Founder of Islamic Neoplatonism: His Life, Works and Influence. Oxford: Oneworld, 2002. Fahlbusch, Erwin, and G. W. Bromiley. The Encyclopedia of Christianity. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Farber-Ginat, Asi. “A New Passage from Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Introduction to Ginat Egoz.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought I (1981): 159–60 (Hebrew). Farber-Ginat, Asi. “On the Sources of Rabbi Moses de Leon’s Early Kabbalistic System.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 (1983): 67–96 (Hebrew). Feldman, Louis H. “Torah and Greek Culture in Josephus.” The Torah U-Madda Journal 7 (1997): 41–87. Feldman, Seymour. Gersonides: Judaism within the Limits of Reason. Oxford; Portland, OR: Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 2010. Fiebig, Paul. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1904. Filson, Floyd V. The Gospel According to John. Richmond, VA: John Knox Press, 1963. Fine, Steven. “From Meeting House to Sacred Realm: Holiness and the Ancient Synagogue.” Pages 21–47 in Sacred Realm: The Emergence of the Synagogue in the Ancient World. Edited by Steven Fine and Yeshiva University Museum. New York: Oxford University Press, 1996. Fiorenza, Elisabeth S. “Wisdom Mythology and the Christological Hymns of the New Testament.” Pages 17–41 in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Robert L. Wilken. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, c1975.

Bibliography

391

Fishbane, Eitan P. As Light Before Dawn: The Inner World of a Medieval Kabbalist. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2009. Fishbane, Michael A. “The ‘Measures’ of God’s Glory in the Ancient Midrash.” Pages 53–74 in Messiah and Christos: Studies in Jewish Origins of Christianity Presented to David Flusser. Edited by Ithamar Grunwald. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1992. Fishbane, Michael A. Biblical Interpretation in Ancient Israel. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. A Wandering Aramean: Collected Aramaic Essays. Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, c1979. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. “Presidential Address: The Languages of Palestine in the Frist Century A.D.” CBQ 32.4 (1970): 525. Fitzmyer, Joseph A. The Genesis Apocryphon of Qumran Cave I. Biblica et Orientalia 18. 1966. Repr., Rome: Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1971. Flesher, Paul V. M. The Targums: A Critical Introduction. Edited by Bruce D. Chilton. Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2011. Flesher, Paul V. M. “The Literary Legacy of the Priests? The Pentateuchal Targums of Israel in Their Social and Linguistic Context.” Pages 467–508 in The Ancient Synagogue from Its Origins until 200 C.E. Edited by Birger Olson and Magnus Zetterholm. Stockholm: Almqvist & Wiksell, 2003. Flusser, David. Die Rabbinischen Gleichnisse Und Der Gleichniserzähler Jesus. Bern; Las Vegas: Lang, 1981. Flusser, David. Judaism and the Origins of Christianity. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1988. Fohrer, Georg. Introduction to the Old Testament. Translated by David E. Green. New York: Abingdon, 1968. Forti, Tava. “The Isa Zara in Proverbs 1–9: Allegory and Allegorization.” Hebrew Studies 48 (2007): 89–100. Fossum, Jarl E. The Name of God and the Angel of the Lord: Samaritan and Jewish Concepts of Intermediation and the Origin of Gnosticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1985. Fossum, Jarl E. “Jewish-Christian Christology and Jewish Mysticism.” Vigiliae Christianae 37.3 (1983): 260–87. Fox, Michael V. “ʾAmon Again.” JBL 115.4 (1996): 699–702. Fox, Michael V. Proverbs 1–9: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. 1st ed. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 2000. Frank, Richard M. The Wisdom of Jesus Ben Sirach (Sinai Ar. 155. IXth–Xth Cent.) Louvain: CorpusSCO, 1974. Frank, Daniel. “Maimonides and Medieval Jewish Aristotelianism.” Pages 142–54 in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003.

392

Bibliography

Fraenkel, Yonah. “Darkhei Ha’aggadah Vehamidrash.” Prooftexts 14.2 (1994): 189–204. Funkenstein, Amos. “Gershom Scholem: Charisma, Kairos and the Messianic Dialectic.” History and Memory 4 (1992): 123–39. Furstenberg, Yair. “The Rabbinic Ban on maʿaseh bereshit: Sources, Context, and Concerns.” Pages 39–63 in Jewish and Christian Cosmogony in Late Antiquity. Edited by Lance Jenott and Sarit K. Gribetz. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2013. Gaon, Saadia. The Book of Beliefs and Opinions. Translated by Samuel Rosenblatt. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1976. Garb, Jonathan. Manifestations of Power in Jewish Mysticism: From Rabbinic Literature to Safedian Kabbalah (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2005. Genette, Gérard. Paratexts: Thresholds of Interpretation. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997. Georgi, Dieter. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1986. Gerhardsson, Birger. “If We Do not Cut the Parables out of their Frames.” NTS 37.3 (1991): 329–32. Gersonides and Seymour Feldman. The Wars of the Lord. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1984. Ginsburger, Moses. Die Anthropomorphism in den Thargumin. Inaug. – diss. University of Strassburg; Braunschweig: Appelhans & Pfenningstorff, 1891. Glicksman, Andrew T. Wisdom of Solomon 10: A Jewish Hellenistic Reinterpretation of Early Israelite History through Sapiential Lenses. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2011. Goetschel, Roland. “‘Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh’ in The Works of the Gerona Kabbalists.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6 (1987): 293–96 (Hebrew). Goff, Matthew J. “Wisdom Literature at Qumran.” Pages 1342–45 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2010. Goldberg, Arnold, Margarete Schlüter, and Peter Schäfer. Rabbinische Texte als Gegenstand der Auslegung: gesammelte Studien II. Vol. 2. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999. Goldin, Judah. The Song at the Sea: Being a Commentary on a Commentary in Two Parts. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1971. Goldingay, John E. Daniel. Word Biblical Commentary 30. Waco, TX: Word Books, 1989. Goodblatt, David M. Rabbinic Instruction in Sasanian Babylonia. Leiden: Brill, 1975. Goodenough, Erwin R. The Politics of Philo Judaeus. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1938. Goodenough, Erwin R. The Theology of Justin Martyr: An Investigation into the Concep­ tions of Early Christian Literature and Its Hellenistic and Judaistic Influences. Amsterdam: Philo, 1968. Gottlieb, Ephraim. Studies in the Kabbalistic Literature. Edited by Joseph Hacker (Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Tel-Aviv University, 1976.

Bibliography

393

Gottlieb, Ephraim. “The Concluding Portion of R. Joseph Chiqatella’s Shaʿarei Ẕedeq.” Tarbiz 4 (1970): 359–89 (Hebrew). Graetz, Heinrich. Geschichte Der Juden Von Den ältesten Zeiten Bis Auf Die Gegenwart. Aus Den Quellen Neu Bearb. Leipzig: O. Leiner, 1897–1911. Graetz, Heinrich. Gnosticismus und Judenthum. Krotoschin: B. L. Monasch, 1846. Repr., Farnborough, Hampshire: Gregg International Publishers, 1971. Green, Arthur G. “Shekhinah, the Virgin Mary, and the Song of Songs: Reflections on a Kabbalistic Symbol in Its Historical Context.” AJS Review 26.1 (2002): 32–35. Greenberg, Moshe. “On the Refinement of the Conception of Prayer in Hebrew Scriptures.” AJS Review 1 (1976): 76–80. Greenfield, Jonas C. “Apkallu.” Pages 72–74 in Dictionary of Deities and Demons in the Bible. 2nd rev. Edited by Kevin van der Toorn, Bob Becking, and Pieter W. van der Horst. Leiden: Brill, 1999. Greenfield, Jonas C. “The Narrative Meshalim in the Synoptic Gospels: A Comparison with the Narrative Meshalim in the Old Testament.” NTS 34.3 (1988): 339–63. Greenfield, Jonas C., George J. Brooke, John J., Collins, Torleif Elgvin, Lawrence H, Schiffman, and Michael E. Stone, eds. Parabiblical Texts, Part 3. DJD 22. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1996. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “‘The Visions of Ezekiel’: Critical Edition and Commentary.” Termirin 1 (1972): 128–29. Gruenwald, Ithamar. “Reflections on the Nature and Origins of Jewish Mysticism.” Pages 25–57 in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 years after: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Gruenwald, Ithamar. Apocalyptic and Merkavah Mysticism. AGAJU 14. Leiden-Köln: Brill, 1980. Guttman, Alexander. Rabbinic Judaism in the Making: The Halakhah from Ezra to Judah I. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 2018. Guttmann, Julius. Philosophies of Judaism: The History of Jewish Philosophy from Biblical times to Franz Rosenzweig. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1964. Guttmann, Julius. HaMashal bitkufat Hatannaim. Jerusalem: Guild Cooperative Press, 1940. Guttmann, Theodor. HaMashal bitkufat Hatannaim. Jerusalem: Guild Cooperative Press, 1940. Halbertal, Moshe. Concealment and Revelation: Esotericism in Jewish Thought and its Philosophical Implications. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 2009. Halevi, Judah. The Kuzari: An Argument for the Faith of Israel. Translated by Hartwig Hirschfeld. New York: Schocken, 1964.

394

Bibliography

Harrison, Everett F. “A Study of John 1:14.” Pages 23–35 in Unity and Diversity in NT Theology: Essays in Honor of G. E. Ladd. Edited by Robert A. Guelich. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1978. Halperin, David J. The Merkabah in Rabbinic Literature. New Haven: American Oriental Society, 1980. Hamerton-Kelly, R. G. Pre-Existence, Wisdom, and the Son of Man: A Study of the Idea of Pre-Existence in the New Testament. Society for New Testament Studies. Monograph Series 21. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1973. Hamp, Vinzenz. “Der Begriff ‘Wort’ in den aramäischen Bibelübersetzungen: Ein exeget. Beitr. zur Hypostasen-Frage u. zur Geschichte d. Logos-Spekulationen.” PhD diss. Neuer Filser-Verlag, 1938. Harrington, Daniel J. Wisdom Texts from Qumran. London: Routledge, 1996. Harrington, Daniel J. Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Harvey, Steven. “Islamic Philosophy and Jewish Philosophy.” Pages 349–69 in The Cambridge Companion to Arabic Philosophy. Edited by Peter Adamson and Richard C. Taylor. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Harvey, Warren Z. “A Third Approach to Maimonides’ Cosmogony-Prophetology Puzzle.” HTR 74.3 (1981): 287–301. Harvey, Warren Z. “Maimonides’ Critical Epistemology and ‘Guide’ 2:24.” Aleph 8 (2008): 213–35. Hayman, Peter. “The Temple at the Center of the Universe: Some Observations on Sefer Yetsirah.” JJS (1984): 176–82. Hayward, Robert. Divine Name and Presence: The Memra. Oxford Centre for Postgraduate Hebrew Studies. Totowa, NJ: Allanheld, Osmun, 1981. Hayward, Robert. “The Memra of YHWH and the Development of Its Use in Targum Neofiti.” JJS 25 (1974): 411–18. Hayward, Robert. “The Date of Targum Pseudo-Jonathan: Some Comments.” JJS 40 (1989): 7–30. Hecht, Richard D. “Philo and Messiah.” Pages 139–68 in Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Ernest S. Frerichs, William S. Green, and Jacob Neusner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Hedrick, Charles W. The Apocalypse of Adam: A Literary and Source Analysis. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1980. Heintz, Jean G. “Royal Traits and Messianic Figures: A Thematic and Iconographical Approach.” Pages 52–66 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, James Brownson, Michael T. Davis, Steven. J. Kraftchick, and Alan F. Segal. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Hellner-Eshed, Melila. A River Flows from Eden: The Language of Mystical Experience in the Zohar. Translated by Nathan Wolski. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2009.

Bibliography

395

Hengel, Martin. Judaism and Hellenism: Studies in Their Encounter in Palestine during the Early Hellenistic Period. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974. Hengel, Martin. “Messianische Hoffnung und politischer ‘Radikalismus’ in der jüdischhellistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdisch-hellistischen Diaspora: Zur Frage der Voraussetzungen des jüdischen Aufstandes unter Trajan 115–17 n. Chr.” Pages 655–86 in Apocalypticism in the Mediterranean World and the Near East: Proceedings of the International Colloquium on Apocalypticism, Uppsala, August 12–17, 1979. Edited by David Hellholm. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1983. Hengel, Martin. The Johannine Question. Translated by John Bowden. London: SCM, 1989. Hermes, Trismegistus. Hermetica: The Ancient Greek and Latin Writings which contain religious or philosophic teachings ascribed to Hermes Trismegistus. Edited by Walter Scott. Boulder, CO: Hermes House, 1982. Hidary, Richard. “The Rhetoric of Rabbinic Authority: Making the Transition from Priest to Sage.” Pages 16–45 in Jewish Rhetorics: History, Theory, Practice. Edited by Michael B. Donals and Janice W. Fernheimer. Waltham, MA: Brandeis University Press, 2014. Hidary, Richard. Dispute for the Sake of Heaven: Legal Pluralism in the Talmud. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2010. Himmelfarb, Martha. A Kingdom of Priests: Ancestry and Merit in Ancient Judaism, Jewish Culture and Contexts. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006. Himmelfarb, Martha. “Abraham and the Messianism of Genesis Rabbah.” Pages 99–114 in Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context. Edited by Sarit K. Gribetz, David M. Grossberg, and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Hippolytus, Antipope and Origen. Origenis Philosophumena Sive Omnium Haeresium Refutatio. Edited by Emmanuel Miller. Oxonii: Typographeo Academico, 1851. Hoekema, Anthony A. The Bible and the Future. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1979. Hoenig, Sidney B. The Great Sanhedrin: A Study of the Origin, Development, Composition and Function of the Bet Din Ha-gadol during the Second Jewish Commonwealth. Philadelphia: Dropsie College, 1953. Hurowitz, Victor A. “Nursling, Advisor, Architect? and the Role of Wisdom in Proverbs 8, 22–31.” Biblica (1999): 391–40. Huss, Boaz. “Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Definition of Symbolism and it Influence on Kabbalistic Literature.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 12 (1996): 157–76 (Hebrew). Hurtado Larry W. One God, One Lord: Early Christian Devotion and Ancient Jewish Monotheism. 3rd ed. London, UK: T&T Clark, 2015.

396

Bibliography

Hurwitz, Siegmund. “Some Psychological Aspects of the Messianic Idea in Judaism.” Pages 130–33 in The Well-Tended Tree; Essays into the Spirit of Our Time. Edited by Hilde Kirsch. New York: Putnam, 1971. Hyman, Arthur, trans. “Al-Farabi.” Pages 215–38 in Philosophy in the Middle Ages: The Christian, Islamic, and Jewish Traditions. Edited by James J. Walsh, and Thomas Williams. 3rd ed. Indianapolis, IN: Hackett Pub., 2010. Idel, Moshe. “Notes on Medieval Jewish-Christian Polemics.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 [4] (1984): 689–98 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “‘The Window of Opportunities’ of Kabbalah: 1270–1290.” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 48 (2002): 5–32. Idel, Moshe. “‘Unio Mystica’ as a Criterion: Some observations on ‘Hegelian’ Phenomenologies of Mysticism.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 1 (2002): 19–41. Idel, Moshe. “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn.” Revue de Métaphysique et de Morale 4 (1998): 495–528. Idel, Moshe. “Allegory and Divine Names in Ecstatic Kabbalah.” Pages 317–48 in Interpretation and Allegory. Edited with introductory essays by Jon Whitman. Leiden: Brill, 2000. Idel, Moshe. “Defining Kabbalah: The Kabbalah of the Divine Names.” Pages 97–122 in Mystics of the Book: Themes, Topics, and Typologies. Edited by Robert A. Herrera. New York: Peter Lang, 1993. Idel, Moshe. “Hermeticism and Judaism.” Pages 59–76 in Hermeticism and the Renaissance: Intellectual History and the Occult in Early Modern Europe. Edited by Ingrid Merkel and Allen Debus. Washington: Folger Shakespeare Library, 1988. Idel, Moshe. “Historical Introduction.” In Joseph Gikatilla, Shaʿarei Orah: Gates of Light. Translated by Avi Weinstein. San Francisco: HarperCollins, 1994. Idel, Moshe. “Jewish Kabbalah in Christian Garb.” In Kabbalah in Italy, 1280–1510: A Survey, 227–35. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2011. Idel, Moshe. “Jewish Mysticism among the Jews of Arab/Moslem Lands.” Journal for the Study of Sephardic and Mizrahi Jewry 1 (2007): 14–38. Idel, Moshe. “Jewish Mysticism and Muslim Mysticism.” Mahanayyim 1 (1992): 28–33 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Kabbalah, Hieroglyphicity and Hieroglyphs.” Kabbalah 11 (2004): 11–47. Idel, Moshe. “Maimonides’ Guide of the Perplexed and the Kabbalah.” Jewish History 18.2–3 (2004): 197–226. Idel, Moshe. “Metatron: Notes towards the Development of Myth in Judaism.” ʾEshel Beʾer-Sheva 4 (1996): 29–44. Idel, Moshe. “Notes on Medieval Jewish-Christian Polemics.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 3 [4], 1984 (Hebrew).

Bibliography

397

Idel, Moshe. “On Binary ‘Beginnings’ in Kabbalah Scholarship.” Aporematha. Kritische Studien zur Philologiegeschichte Band 5 (2001): 313–37. Idel, Moshe. “On Some Forms of Order in Kabbalah.” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 50–52 (2003): xxxi–lviii. Idel, Moshe. “On the Intention of Silent Prayer in R Isaac the Blind.” Pages 25–52 in Massuhot: Studies in Kabbalistic Literature and Jewish Philosophy in Memory of Prof. Ephraim Gottlieb. Edited by Mikhal Oron and Amos Goldreich (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1994. Idel, Moshe. “On the Meanings of the Term Kabbalah  – Between the Ecstatic and the Sefirotic Schools of Kabbalah in the 13th Century.” Peʿamim 93 (2002): 38–76 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Orienting, Orientalizing or Disorienting the Study of Kabbalah: ‘An Almost Absolutely Unique’ Case of Occidentalism.” Kabbalah: Journal for the Study of Jewish Mystical Texts 2 (1997): 13–47. Idel, Moshe. “Rabbinism versus Kabbalism: On G. Scholem’s Phenomenology of Judaism.” Modern Judaism 11.3 (1991): 281–96. Idel, Moshe. “Radical Hermeneutics: From Ancient to Medieval and Modern Hermeneutics.” Atti Dei Convegni Lincei-Accademia Nazionale Dei Lincei 135 (1998): 165–201. Idel, Moshe. “Reification of Language in Jewish Mysticism.” Pages 42–79 in Mysticism and Language. Edited by Steven T. Katz. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992. Idel, Moshe. “Subversive Catalysts: Gnosticism and Messianism in Gershom Scholem’s View of Jewish Mysticism.” Pages 133–53 in The Jewish Past Revisited: Reflections on Modern Jewish Historians. Edited by D. Myers and D. Ruderman. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Idel, Moshe. “The Attitude to Christianity in Sefer ha-Meshiv.” Immanuel 12 (1981): 77–95 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “The Concept of the Torah in Hekhalot Literature and Kabbalah.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 1 (1981): 23–84. Idel, Moshe. “The Contribution of Abraham Abulafia’s Kabbalah to the Understanding of Jewish Mysticism.” Pages 117–43 in Gershom Scholem’s Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism 50 Years After: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Idel, Moshe. “The Magical and Neoplatonic Interpretations of the Kabbalah in the Renaissance.” Pages 186–242 in Jewish Thought in the Sixteenth Century. Harvard Judaic Texts and Studies 2. Edited by Bernard D. Cooperman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1983. Idel, Moshe. “The Sefirot above the Sefirot.” Tarbiz 51 (1982): 239–80 (Hebrew). Idel, Moshe. “Torah Ḥadashah – Messiah and the New Torah in Jewish Mysticism and Modern Scholarship.” Kabbalah 21 (2010): 57–109.

398

Bibliography

Idel, Moshe. “Torah: Between Presence and Representation of the Divine in Jewish Mysticism.” Religion 89 (2001): 197–235. Idel, Moshe. “Types of Redemptive Activities in the Middle Ages.” Pages 254–65 in Messianism and Eschatology: A Collection of Essays. Edited by Z. Baras (Hebrew). Israel: Zalman Shazar Centre for the Furtherance of the Study of Jewish History, 1983/4. Idel, Moshe. Abraham Abulafia: An Ecstatic Kabbalist. Lancaster, CA: Labyrinthos, 2002. Idel, Moshe. Abraham Abulafia’s Works and Doctrine (Hebrew). PhD diss. Jerusalem: Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1976. Idel, Moshe. Absorbing Perfections: Kabbalah and Interpretation. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2002. Idel, Moshe. Ascensions on High in Jewish Mysticism: Pillars, Lines, Ladders. Budapest: Central European University Press, 2005. Idel, Moshe. Ben: Sonship and Jewish Mysticism. London: Continuum; Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2007. Idel, Moshe. Enchanted Chains: Techniques and Rituals in Jewish Mysticism. Edited by Harold Bloom and Daniel Abrams. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2005. Idel, Moshe. Golem: Jewish Magical and Mystical Traditions on the Artificial Anthropoid. SUNY Series in Judaica. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1990. Idel, Moshe. Hasidism: Between Ecstasy and Magic. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1994. Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah and Eros. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2005. Idel, Moshe. Kabbalah: New Perspectives. 1988. Repr., New Haven: Yale University Press, 1990. Idel, Moshe. Language, Torah and Hermeneutics in Abraham Abulafia. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1989. Idel, Moshe. Messianic Movements in Israel. Edited by Aharon Z. Eshkoli (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1987. Idel, Moshe. Messianic Mystics. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1998. Idel, Moshe. The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia. Edited by Jonathan Chipman. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998. Idel, Moshe. Studies in Ecstatic Kabbalah. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1988. Idel, Moshe. The Angelic World: Apotheosis and Theophany (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: MiskalYedioth Ahronot, 2008. Idel, Moshe. The Mystical Experience in Abraham Abulafia. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1988. Irenaeus, Bishop of Lyon. St. Irenaeus of Lyons against the Heresies. Edited by Dominic J. Unger and John J. Dillon. New York: Paulist Press, 1992. Jenni, Ernst, and Claus Westermann. Theological Lexicon of the Old Testament. MA: Hendrickson, 1997.

Bibliography

399

Jobes, Karen H. “Sophia Christology: The Way of Wisdom?” Pages 226–50 in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by James I. Packer and Sven Soderlund. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Johnston, Robert M. Parabolic Interpretations Attributed to Tannaim. PhD diss. Ann Arbor, MI: ProQuest Dissertations Publishing, 1977. Jonas, Hans. “Myth and Mysticism: A Study of Objectification and Interiorization in Religious Thought.” JR 49 (1969): 315–29. Jonge, Marinus de. Jesus, the Servant-Messiah. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1991. Jülicher, Adolf. Die Gleichnisreden Jesu. Vol 2. 2nd ed. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1963. Kadushin, Max. The Rabbinic Mind. 2nd ed. New York: Blaisdell, 1965. Kaplan, Lawrence J. “Maimonides on the Miraculous Element in Prophecy.” HTR 70.3–4 (1977): 233–56. Kasser, Rodolphe et al., eds. and trans. Tractatus Tripartitus. Francke, Verlag: Bern, 1973–1975. Katz, Steven T. “Language, Epistemology, and Mysticism.” Pages 22–74 in Mysticism and Philosophical Analysis. Edited by Steven T. Katz. New York: Oxford University Press, 1978. Kaufman, Stephen A. “Dating the Language of the Palestinian Targums and Their Use in the Study of First Century Texts.” Pages 118–41 in The Aramaic Bible: Targums in Their Historical Context, JSOTSup 166. Edited by Derek R. G. Beattie and Martin J. McNamara. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Keener, Craig S. The Gospel of John: A Commentary. Vol. 1. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. Kellner, Menachem. Maimonides on Judaism and the Jewish People. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1991. Kiperwasser, Reuven. “A Bizarre Invitation to the King’s Banquet: The Metamorphosis of a Parable Tradition and the Transformation of an Eschatological Idea.” Prooftexts: A Journal of Jewish Literary History 33.2 (2013): 147–81. Kittel, Gerhard, and Gerhard Friedrich, eds. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. 10 vols. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1964–1976. Klein, Michael L., ed. and trans. The Fragment-Targums of the Pentateuch according to Their Extant Sources. 2 vols. AnBib; Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1980. Klingler, David R. “Validity in the Identification and Interpretation of a Literary Allusion in the Hebrew Bible.” PhD diss. Dallas Theological Seminary, 2010. Kloppenborg, John S. “Wisdom Christology in Q.” Laval Theologique et Philosophique 34.2 (1978): 129–47. Kogan, Barry S. “Who Has Implanted within Us Eternal Life: Judah Halevi on Immortality and the Afterlife.” Pages 473–95 in Judaism and Modernity: The Religious

400

Bibliography

Philosophy of David Hartman. Edited by Jonathan W. Malino. Jerusalem: Shalom Hartman Institute, 2001. Kraemer, Joel L. “The Islamic Context of Medieval Jewish Philosophy.” Pages 38–68 in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Kraemer, Joel L. “On Maimonides’ Messianic Posture.” Pages 109–42 in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 2. Edited by Isadore Twersky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Kraeling, Carl H. Anthropos and Son of Man: A Study in the Religious Syncretism of the Hellenistic Orient. Piscataway: Gorgias Press. 2008. Kreisel, Howard. “Judah Halevi’s Influence on Maimonides: A Preliminary Appraisal.” Pages 95–121 in Maimonidean Studies 2. Edited by Arthur Hyman, Alfred L. Ivry, James Diamond, and Maimonides. New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 1992. Kugel, James L. “4Q369 ‘Prayer of Enosh’ and Ancient Biblical Interpretation.” DSD 5 (1998): 119–48. Lachter, Hartley. Kabbalistic Revolution: Reimagining Judaism in Medieval Spain. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2014. Ladd, George E. A Theology of the New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1974. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Jesus in the Talmud. Pittsburgh, PA: Hebrew Union College Press, 1951. Lauterbach, Jacob Z. Mekhilta De-Rabbi Ishmael: A Critical Edition, Based on the Manuscripts and Early Editions. 2nd ed. Philadelphia, PA: Jewish Publication Society, 2004. Layton, Bentley. The Gnostic Scriptures. A New Translation with Annotations and Introductions. New York: Doubleday, 1987. Lease, Gary. “Jewish Mystery Cults since Goodenough.” ANRW 20 (1987): 858–80. Lenzi, Alan. “Proverbs 8:22–31: Three Perspectives on Its Composition.” JBL 125.4 (2006): 700–3. Lenzi, Alan. “The Uruk List of Kings and Sages and Late Mesopotamian Scholarship.” JANER 8 (2008): 137–69. León, D. Muñoz. Dios-palabra: Memrá en los Targumím del Pentateuco. Granada: Santa Rita, 1974. Levenson, Jon D. “The Sources of Torah: Psalm 119 and the Modes of Revelation in Second Temple Judaism.” Pages 559–74 in Ancient Israelite Religion: Essays in Honor of Frank Moore Cross. Edited by Patrick D. Miller, Paul D. Hanson, and S. Dean McBride. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1987. Levine, Lee I. Judaism and Hellenism in Antiquity: Conflict or Confluence, Samuel and Althea Stroum Lectures in Jewish Studies. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1998.

Bibliography

401

Lieberman, Saul. Greek in Jewish Palestine/Hellenism in Jewish Palestine. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1994. Lieberman, Saul. Hellenism in Jewish Palestine: Studies in the Literary Transmission, Beliefs and Manners of Palestine in the I century BCE–IV century CE. Vol. 18. New York: The Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1962. Liebes, Yehuda. “De Natura Dei: On the Development of the Jewish Myth.” Pages 1–64 in Studies in Jewish Myth and Jewish Messianism. Translated by Batya Stein. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993. Liebes, Yehuda. “How the Zohar was Written.” Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 8 (1989): 20–25 (Hebrew). Liebes, Yehuda. “Myth vs. Symbol in the Zohar and in Lurianic Kabbalah.” Pages 212–42 in Essential Papers on Kabbalah. Edited by Fine Lawrence. New York: New York University Press, 1995. Liebes, Yehuda. “The Work of the Chariot and the Work of Creation as Esoterical Teachings in Philo of Alexandria.” Pages 105–120 in Scriptural Exegesis: The Shapes of Culture and the Religious Imagination; Essays in Honour of Michael Fishbane. Edited by Deborah A. Green and Laura S. Lieber. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Liebes, Yehuda. Ars Poetica in Sefer Yetsira. Tel Aviv: Schocken, 2000. Liebes, Yehuda. Studies in the Zohar. Translated by Arnold Schwartz, Stephanie Nakache, and Penina Peli. SUNY Series in Judaica. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1993. Lincoln, Andrew T. The Gospel According to Saint John. BNTC 4. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson; London; New York: Continuum, 2005. Lindars, Barnabas. “Torah in Deuteronomy.” Pages 117–36 in Words and Meanings: Essays Presented to David Winton Thomas. Edited by Peter R. Ackroyd. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1968. Liver, Jacob. “The Doctrine of the Two Messiahs in Sectarian Literature in the Time of the Second Commonwealth.” HTR 52.3 (1959): 149–85. Lührmann, Dieter. “Ein Weisheitspsalm aus Qumran (11 QPsa XVIII).” ZAW 80.1 (1968): 87–98. Lust, Johan, Erik Eynikel, and Katrin Hauspie. A Greek-English Lexicon of the Septuagint. 2 vols. Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1996. Maasen, Sabine, and Peter Weingart. Metaphors and the Dynamics of Knowledge. London and New York: Routledge, 2000. Mack, Burton L. “Wisdom Makes a Difference: Alternatives to ‘Messianic’ Configurations.” Pages 15–48 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by Ernest S. Frerichs, William S. Green, and Jacob Neusner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Mack, Burton L. Logos und Sophia: Untersuchungen zur Weisheitstheologie im Hellenistischen Judentum. SUNT 10. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1973. Mack, Burton L. “The Christ and Jewish Wisdom.” Pages 192–221 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity, Developments in Earliest Judaism and

402

Bibliography

Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, James Brownson, Michael T. Davis, Steven. J. Kraftchick, and Alan F. Segal. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Mackintosh H. Ross. The Doctrine of the Person of Jesus Christ. 2nd ed. New York: Scribner, 1916. Mantel, Hugo. Studies in the history of the Sanhedrin. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1961. Marcus, Ivan G. Piety and Society: The Jewish Pietists of Medieval Germany. Leiden: Brill, 1981. Marcus, Jastrow. A Dictionary of the Targumim: the Talmud Bible and Yerushalmi and the Midrashic Literature. New York: Pardes, 1950. Margolin, Ron. “Moshe Idel’s Phenomenology and its Sources.” Journal for the Study of Religions and Ideologies 6 (18) (2007): 41–42. Marqah, and John Macdonald. Memar Marqah (= The Teaching of Marqah). Beihefte Zur Zeitschrift Für Die Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft 84. Berlin: A. Töpelmann. 1963. Maybaum, Siegmund. Die Anthropomorphien Und Anthropopathien Bei Onkelos Und Den Spätern Targumim: Mit Besonderer Berücksichtigung Der Ausdrücke Memra, JeKara Und Schechintha. Breslau: Schletter, 1870. McArthur, Harvey K., and Robert M. Johnston. They also Taught in Parables: Rabbinic Parables from the First Centuries of the Christian Era. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2014. McGrath, James F. John’s Apologetic Christology: Legitimation and Development in Johannine Christology. Cambridge, UK; New York: Cambridge University Press, 2001. McHugh, John F. John 1–4 (ICC): A Critical and Exegetical Commentary. London; New York: T&T Clark, 2009. McNamara, Martin J. “Logos of the Fourth Gospel and Memra of the Palestinian Targum (Ex 1242).” The Expository Times 79.4 (1968): 115–17. McNamara, Martin J. Targum and New Testament: Collected Essays. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. McNamara, Martin J. Targum and Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1972. McNamara, Martin J. Targum and Testament Revisited: Aramaic Paraphrases of the Hebrew Bible: A Light on the New Testament. 2nd ed. Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 2010. McNamara, Martin J. Targum Neofiti 1: Genesis. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1992. McNamara, Martin J. Targum Neofiti 1: Deuteronomy. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997. McNamara, Martin J. The New Testament and the Palestinian Targum to the Pentateuch. Rome: Biblical institute Press, 1966. McNamara, Martin J., and Michael Maher. Targum Neofiti 1 and Peusdo-Jonathan: Exodus. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987. McNamara, Martin J., and Earnst G. Clarke. Targum Neofiti 1 and Pseudo-Jonathan: Numbers. Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1987.

Bibliography

403

Mendelson, Alan. Secular Education in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1982. Meroz, Ronit. “The Weaving of a Myth: An Analysis of Two Stories in the Zohar.” Pages 168–205 in vol. 2 of Study and Knowledge in Jewish Thought. Edited by Howard Kreisel. Beer Sheva: Ben-Gurion University of the Negev Press, 2006. Meroz, Ronit. Headwaters of the Zohar: Analysis and Annotated Critical Edition of Parashat Exodus of the Zohar (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: The Haim Rubin Tel Aviv University Press, 2019. Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. King and Messiah: The Civil and Sacral Legitimation of the Israelite Kings. Coniectanea Biblica. Old Testament Series 8. Lund: Gleerup, 1976. Middleton, Robert D. “Logos and Shekinah in the Fourth Gospel.” JQR 29.2 (1938): 101–13. Miller, Michael T. “The Metaphysical Meaning of the Name of God in Jewish Thought: A Philosophical Analysis of Historical Traditions from Late Antiquity into the Middle Ages.” PhD diss. University of Nottingham, 2014. Moloney, Francis J. The Gospel of John: Text and Context. Boston: Brill, 2005. Moore, George F. “Intermediaries in Jewish Theology: Memra, Shekinah, Metatron.” HTR 15.1 (1922): 41–85. Moore, George F. Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era: The Age of the Tannaim. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1950. Moreau, Jérôme. Personnification et effacement: le paradoxe du livre de la Sagesse. Pages 259–73 in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà. Edited by Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Morlok, Elke. Rabbi Joseph Gikatilla’s Hermeneutics. Texts and Studies in Medieval and Early Modern Judaism 25. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2011. Morton, Smith. “What Is Implied by the Variety of Messianic Figures.” JBL 78 (1959): 66–72. Moses ben Maimon (Maimonides), and Shlomo Pines. The Guide of the Perplexed. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1963. Mowinckel, Sigmund. He That Cometh: The Messiah Concept in the Old Testament and Later Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, c2005. Müller, Achim. Proverbs 1–9: The New Clothes of Wisdom. Berlin; New York: Walter De Gruyter, 2000. Mueller, James R. The Five Fragments of the Apocryphon of Ezekiel: A Critical Study. Sheffield, UK: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994. Murphy, Ronald E. “The Personification of Wisdom.” Pages 222–33 in Wisdom in Ancient Israel: Essays in Honour of J. A. Emerton. Edited by John Day, Robert Gorden, and Hugh G. M. Williamson. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Murphy, Ronald E. Proverbs: Word Biblical Commentary 22. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 1998.

404

Bibliography

Naḥmanides, and Avraham. Y. Finkel. Ramban Commentary on the Torah: Selected Portions of Nachmanides. Vol. 1. 1st ed. Scranton, PA: Yeshivath Beth Moshe, 2004. Najman, Hindy. Seconding Sinai: The Development of Mosaic Discourse in Second Temple Judaism. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2003. Najman, Hindy. “Torah and Tradition.” Pages 1316–17 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2010. Neher, Andre. The Prophetic Existence. Translated by William Wolf. New York: A. S. Barnes, 1969. Nelson, W. David. Mekhilta De-Rabbi Shimon Bar Yoḥai. 1st ed. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 2006. Neusner, Jacob. Judaism and Scripture: The Evidence of Leviticus Rabbah. Chicago Studies in the History of Judaism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1986. Neusner, Jacob. Judaisms and their Messiahs at the Turn of the Christian Era. Edited by William S. Green and Ernest S. Frerichs. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Neusner, Jacob. Song of Songs Rabbah: An Analytical Translation. 2 vols. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1989. Neusner, Jacob. The Reader’s Guide to the Talmud. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Neusner, Jacob, and Alan J. Avery-Peck. Encyclopedia of Midrash: Biblical Interpretation in Formative Judaism. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2005. Neusner, Jacob and Saul Horovitz, trans. Sifré Zutta to Numbers. Lanham, MD: University Press of America, 2009. Neumark, David. Geschichte Der Jüdischen Philosophie Des Mittelalters. Berlin: G. Reimer, 1907. Niehoff, Maren R. “What Is a Name? Philo’s Mystical Philosophy of Language.” JSQ 2 (1995): 232–33. Niehoff, Maren R. “Creatio ex Nihilo Theology in Genesis Rabbah in light of Christian Exegesis.” HTR (2006): 38–39. Niehoff, Maren R. “Origen’s Commentary on Genesis as a key to Genesis Rabbah.” Pages 129–53 in Genesis Rabbah in Text and Context. Edited by Sarit K. Gribetz, David M. Grossberg, Martha Himmelfarb, and Peter Schäfer. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2016. Nuriel, Abraham. “Providence and Governance in Moreh ha-Nevukhim.” Tarbiz 49 (1980): 348–53 (Hebrew). Odeberg, Hugo. 3 Enoch: Or, The Hebrew Book of Enoch. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1928. Origen, and Henry Chadwick. Origen: Contra Celsum. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1980. Orlov, Andrei A. The Enoch-Metatron Tradition. Texts and Studies in Ancient Judaism 107. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2005.

Bibliography

405

Orlov, Andrei A. “Metatron.” Pages 942–43 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2010. Pachter, Mordechai. “The Concept of Devekut in the Homiletical Ethical Writings of 16th Century Safed.” Pages 171–230 in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 2. Edited by Isadore Twersky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1984. Parry, Donald W., and Emanuel Tov. The Dead Sea Scrolls Reader. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2004. Pautrel, Raymond. “Les canons du mashal rabbinique.” Recherches de Science Religieuse 26.1 (1938): 264–81. Pedaya, Haviva. “The Provencal Stratum in the Redaction of Sefer ha-Bahir.” Pages 139–64 in vol. 9 of Shlomo Pines Jubilee Volume (= Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought). Edited by Zev W. Harvey. Jerusalem: Hamakor Press 2, 1990. Pedaya, Haviva. “The Sixth Millennium: Millenarism and Messianism in the Zohar.” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy & Kabbalah 72 (2012): 51–98 (Hebrew). Pedaya, Haviva. “Possessed by Speech: Towards an Understanding of the PropheticEcstatic Pattern among Early Kabbalists.” Tarbiz 65.4 (1996): 565–636. Pedaya, Haviva. Name and Sanctuary in the Teaching of R. Isaac the Blind: A Comparative Study in the Writings of Earliest Kabbalist. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 2001. Perkins, Pheme. Jesus as Teacher. New York; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. Pessin, Sarah. “Jewish Neoplatonism: Being Above Being and Divine Emanation in Solomon Ibn Gabirol and Isaac Israeli.” Pages 91–110 in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Peste, Jonathan. The Poimandres Group in Corpus Hermeticum: Myth, Mysticism, and Gnosis in Late Antiquity. Göteborg: Dept. of Religious Studies, University of Göteborg, 2002. Petuchowski, Jacob. J. “The Theological Significance of the Parable in Rabbinic Literature and the New Testament.” Christian News from Israel 23.2 (10) (1972): 76–86. Pfann, Stephen, and Philip S. Alexander, eds. Qumran Cave 4: Volume XXVI: Cryptic Texts and Miscellanea, Part 1: Miscellaneous Texts from Qumran. vol. 36. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2000. Pines, Shlomo. “God, the Divine Glory and the Angels according to a 2nd Century Theology.” In Jerusalem Studies in Jewish Thought 6. Edited by Joseph Dan (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1987. Pines, Shlomo. “Points of Similarity between the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Sefirot in the Sefer Yezira and a Text of the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies: The

406

Bibliography

Implications of This Resemblance.” Proceedings of the Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities 7.3 (1989): 66–74. Pines, Shlomo. “The Limitations of Human Knowledge According to Al-Farabi, Ibn Bajja, and Maimonides.” Pages 82–109 in Studies in Medieval Jewish History and Literature 1, edited by Isadore Twersky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1979. Pines, Shlomo. Scholasticism after Thomas Aquinas and the Teachings of Hasdai Crescas and his Predecessors (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, 1967. Plett, Heinrich F. Intertextuality. Research in Text Theory 15. Edited by Janos S. Petofi and Hans P. Mai. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter, 1991. Pohlenz, Max. Die Stoa: Geschichte einer geistigen Bewegung. 2 vols. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1984. Pritchard, James B. ed., Ancient Near Eastern Texts Relating to the Old Testament. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1950. Rapoport-Albert, Ada. “God and the Ẓaddik as the Two Focal Points of Hasidic Worship.” History of Religions 4 (1979): 296–325. Ravitzky, Aviezer. “The Secrets of the Guide to the Perplexed: between the Thirteenth and Twentieth Centuries.” Pages 165–67 in Studies in Maimonides. Edited by Isador Twersky. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press: 1990. Ravitzky, Aviezer. “To the Utmost of Human Capacity: Maimonides on the Days of the Messiah.” Pages 221–56 in Perspectives on Maimonides: Philosophical and Historical Studies. Edited by Joel L. Kraemer and Lawrence V. Berman. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990. Reif, Stefan C. Judaism and Hebrew Prayer: New Perspectives on Jewish Liturgical History. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993. Reiterer, Friedrich V. “The Interpretation of the Wisdom Tradition of the Torah within Ben Sira.” Pages 209–32 in The Wisdom of Ben Sira: Studies on Tradition, Redaction, and Theology, Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature 1. Edited by Angelo Passaro and Giuseppe Bellia. Berlin-New York: Walter de Gruyter, 2008. Reitzenstein, Richard, and Trismegistus Hermes. Poimandres: Studien Zur GriechischÄgyptischen Und Frühchristlichen Literatur. Leipzig: Teubner, 1904. Remes, Pauliina. “Neoplatonism.” Pages 48–52 in Ancient Philosophies 4. Stocksfield, England: Acumen, 2008. Reuven, Hammer. Sifre: A Tannaitic Commentary on the Book of Deuteronomy. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986. Ridderbos, Herman N. The Gospel According to John: A Theological Commentary. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1997. Riesner, Rainer. Jesus Als Lehrer: Eine Untersuchung Zum Ursprung Der EvangelienÜberlieferung. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981.

Bibliography

407

Ringgren, Helmer. Word and Wisdom Studies in the Hypostatization of Divine Qualities and Functions in the Ancient Near East. Lund: Håkan Ohlssons boktryckeri, 1947. Robert, Cook W. “Eschatology in John’s Gospel.” Criswell Theological Review 3 (1988): 79–99. Roberts, R. L. “The Rendering ‘Only Begotten’ in John 3:16.” Restoration Quarterly 16 (1973): 2–22. Robinson, James M. “Jesus as Sophos and Sophia: Wisdom Tradition and the Gospels.” Pages 1–16 in Aspects of Wisdom in Judaism and Early Christianity. Edited by Robert L. Wilken, Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1975. Robinson, James M., and Richard Smith. The Nag Hammadi Library in English. 3rd rev. ed. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990. Robinson, John A. T. The Priority of John. Edited by Jennifer F. Coakley. London: SCM Press, 1985. Robinson, John A. T. “The Relation of the Prologue to the Gospel of St. John.” NTS 9.2 (1963): 120–29. Ronning, John L. The Jewish Targums and John’s Logos Theology. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2010. Rogers III, Cleon L. “The Meaning and Significance of the Hebrew Word ‫ אמון‬in Proverbs 8, 30.” ZAW 109 (1997): 208–21. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. “Social and Institutional Settings of Rabbinic Literature,” Pages 58–74 in The Cambridge Companion to Rabbinic Literature. Edited by Charlotte Fonrobert and Martin Jaffee. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press. 2003. Rudolph, Kurt. “Die Gnosis: Texte Und Übersetzungen.” Theologische Rundschau 55.2 (1990): 113–52. Runia, David T. Philo and the Church Fathers: A Collection of Papers. Leiden: Brill, 1995. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria, On the Creation of the Cosmos According to Moses. Leiden: Brill, 2001. Runia, David T. Philo of Alexandria and the Timaeus of Plato. Vol. 44. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 1986. Runia, David T. Philo in Early Christian Literature: A Survey. Assen: Van Gorcum; Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1993. Ruzer, Serge. “From Man as Locus of God’s Indwelling to Death as Temple’s Destruction: Notes on the History of a Motif.” Revue Biblique 119.3 (2012): 383–402. Rynhold, Daniel. An Introduction to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. London: I. B. Tauris, 2009. Rynhold, Daniel. “Good and Evil, Truth and Falsity: Maimonides and Moral Cognitivism.” Trumah 12 (2002): 163–82.

408

Bibliography

Saint Justin Martyr, and Michael Slusser. Dialogue with Trypho: Selections From the Fathers of the Church. Vol. 3. WA: Catholic University of America Press, 2003. Saldarini, Anthony J. “Apocalyptic and Rabbinic Literature.” CBQ (1975): 348–58. Samaritans (Organization) and Cowley, Arthur E. The Samaritan Liturgy. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1909. Samely, Alexander. Forms of Rabbinic Literature and Thought: An Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Sanders, Jack T. The New Testament Christological Hymns: Their Historical Religious Background. Vol. 162. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004. Saperstein, Marc. Decoding the Rabbis: A Thirteenth-Century Commentary on the Aggadah. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980. Saussure, Ferdinand de. Course in General Linguistics. Translated by Roy Harris. La Salle, IL: Open Court, 1983. Savingnac, Julien de. “Le Messianisme de Philon d’Alexandrie.” NT 4 (1959): 319–24. Schäfer, Peter. “Bereshit bara elohim: Bereshit Rabba, parashah 1, Reconsidered.” Pages 267–89 in Empsychoi Logoi – Religious Innovations in Late Antiquity: Studies in Honour of Pieter Willem van der Horst. Edited by Alberdina Houtman, Albert de Jong, and Magdalena W. Misset-van de Weg. Leiden: Brill, 2008. Schäfer, Peter. Mirror of His Beauty: Feminine Images of God from the Bible to the Early Kabbalah. Jews, Christians, and Muslims from the Ancient to the Modern World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2002. Schäfer, Peter. The Origins of Jewish Mysticism. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2009. Schäfer, Peter. The Jewish Jesus: How Judaism and Christianity Shaped Each Other. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2012. Schäfer, Peter et al. Synopse zur Hekhalot-Literatur (‫)סינופסיס לספרות ההיכלות‬. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1981. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “Messianic Figures and Ideas in the Qumran Scrolls.” Pages 116–29 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by. J. Charlesworth, James Brownson, Michael T. Davis, Steven. J. Kraftchick, and Alan F. Segal. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Schiffman, Lawrence H. “The Concept of the Messiah in Second Temple and Rabbinic Literature.” Review and Expositor (1984): 235–46. Schiffman, Lawrence H. From Text to Tradition: A History of Second Temple and Rabbinic Judaism. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1991. Schipper, Bernd U. “When Wisdom Is Not Enough! The Discourse on Wisdom and Torah and the Composition of the Booke of Proverbs.” Pages 55–79 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and D. Andrew Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Schniedewind, William M. “King and Priest in the Book of Chronicles and the Duality of Qumran Messianism.” JJS 45.1 (1994): 71–78.

Bibliography

409

Scholem, Gershom G. Origins of the Kabbalah. Edited by Raphael J. Zwi Werblowsky and translated by Allan Arkush. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society, 1987. Scholem, Gershom G. “Abulafia’s Secrets of the Guide: A Linguistic Turn.” Revue De Métaphysique Et De Morale 4 (1998): 495–529. Scholem, Gershom G. “Devekut or Communion with God.” Pages 203–27 in The Messianic Idea in Judaism: And Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books, 1971. Scholem, Gershom G. “Eine unbekannte mystische Schrift des Mose de Leon.” Monatsschrift für Geschichte und Wissenschaft des Judentums. H. 3/4 (1927): 109–23. Scholem, Gershom G. “Mysticism and Society.” Diogenes 58 (1967): 1–24. Scholem, Gershom G., and Simon Pleasance. “The Name of God and the Linguistic Theory of the Kabbalah.” Diogenes 20.79 (1972): 59–80. Scholem, Gershom G. “The Neutralization of the Messianic Element in Early Hasidism.” Pages 176–202 in The Messianic Idea in Judaism and Other Essays on Jewish Spirituality. New York: Schocken Books, 1971. Scholem, Gershom G. “Traces of Gabirol in the Kabbalah.” Pages 39–66 in Studies in Kabbalah I. Edited by J. Ben-Shlomo and Moshe Idel (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: ʿAm ʿOved, 1998. Scholem, Gershom G. Jewish Gnosticism, Merkabah Mysticism and Talmudic Tradition. 2nd ed. New York: Jewish Theological Seminary of America, 1965. Scholem, Gershom G. Major Trends in Jewish Mysticism. 3rd rev. ed. New York: Schocken Books, 1961. Scholem, Gershom G. On the Kabbalah and Its Symbolism. New York: Schocken Books, 1965. Scholem, Gershom G. On the Mystical Shape of the Godhead: Basic Concepts in the Kabbalah. Translated by Joachim Neugroschel and edited by Jonathan Chipman. New York: Schocken Books, 1991. Scholem, Gershom G. Sabbatai Ṣevi: The Mystical Messiah, 1626–1676. Vol. 208. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016. Scholem, Gershom G. Studies and Texts Concerning the History of Sabbetianism and Its Metamorphoses (Hebrew). Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1974. Scholem, Gershom G. Zur Kabbala Und Ihrer Symbolik. Zürich: Rhein-Verlag, 1960. Schwartz, Dov. “The Neutralization of the Messianic Idea in Medieval Jewish Rationalism.” HUCA 64 (1993): 57–58. Schwartz, Dov. Messianism in Medieval Jewish Thought. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press, 2017. Scott, Bernard B. “Jesus as Sage: An Innovating Voice in Common Wisdom.” Pages 399–415 in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990.

410

Bibliography

Scott, Steven R. “The Binitarian Nature of the Book of Similitudes.” JSP 18/1 (2008): 55–78. Scott, J. M. Clark, and Martin Scott. Sophia and the Johannine Jesus. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1992. Scott, Robert B. Y. “Wisdom in Creation: The ’Āmôn of Proverbs VIII 30.” VT 10.2 (1960): 213–23. Seeligmann, Isaac L. The Septuagint Version of Isaiah: A Discussion of Its Problems. Leiden: Brill, 1948. Segal, Alan F. Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinic Reports about Christianity and Gnosticism. Studies in Judaism in Late Antiquity 25. Leiden: Brill, 2002. Sendor, Mark B. “The Emergence of Provençal Kabbalah: Rabbi Isaac the Blind’s Commentary on Sefer Yeẓirah” (Volumes I and II). PhD diss. Harvard University, 1994. Septimus, Bernard. “Maimonides on Language.” Pages 35–54 in The Culture of Spanish Jewry: Proceedings of the First International Congress. Edited by Aviva Doron. Israel: Levinsky College of Education Publishing House, 1994. Simon, Maurice, and Harry Freedman, trans. Midrash Rabbah: Genesis. Vol. 1. London; New York: Soncino Press, 1983. Sinnott, Alice M. The Personification of Wisdom. England: Ashgate Pub., 2005. Skehan, Patrick W. “Structures in Poems on Wisdom: Proverbs 8 and Sirach 24.” CBQ 41.3 (1979): 374. Smith, Dwight M. The Theology of the Gospel of John. Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press, 1995. Sperber, Daniel. Essays on Greek and Latin in the Mishna, Talmud and Midrashic Literature. Jerusalem: Makor Pub., 1982. Sperber, Alexander. Targum Onkelos to Numbers: An English Translation of the Text with Analysis and Commentary. Edited by Abraham Berliner and Israel Drazin. Hoboken, NJ: Ktav Pub. House, 1998. Staerk, Willy. Soter: die biblische Erlösererwartung als religionsgeschichtliches Problem; eine biblisch-theologische Untersuchung I. Teil: Der biblische Christus (B.F.Ch.Th. II, 31). North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany: Gütersloh Bertelsmann, 1933. Stallman, Robert C. Divine Hospitality in the Pentateuch: A Metaphorical Perspective on God as Host. PhD diss. Glenside PA: Westminster Theological Seminary, 1999. Stallman, Robert C. “Divinity Hospitality and Wisdom’s Banquet in Proverbs 9:1–6.” Pages 120–21 in The Way of Wisdom: Essays in Honor of Bruce K. Waltke. Edited by Bruce K. Waltke. Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2000. Staub, Jacob, trans. The Creation of the World According to Gersonides. Brown Judaic Studies 24. Chico, CA: Scholars Press, 1982. Sterling, Gregory E. “Different Traditions or Emphases? The Image of God in Philo’s De Opificio Mundi.” Pages 41–56 in New Approaches to the Study of Biblical Interpretation in Judaism of the Second Temple Period and in Early Christianity: Proceedings of the

Bibliography

411

Eleventh International Symposium of the Orion Center for the Study of the Dead Sea Scrolls and Associated literature. Edited by Gary A. Anderson, Ruth Clements, and David Satran. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2013. Sterling, Gregory E. “When the Beginning Is the End: The Place of Genesis in the Commentaries of Philo.” Pages 428–38 in The Book of Genesis: Composition, Reception and Interpretation. Edited by Craig A. Evans, Joel N. Lohr, and David L. Petersen. Leiden: Brill, 2012. Stern, Joseph. “Maimonides’ Epistemology.” Pages 105–33 in The Cambridge Companion to Maimonides. Edited by Kenneth Seeskin. New York: Cambridge University Press, 2005. Stern, David. “David Stern Responds.” Prooftexts 5 (1985): 276–80. Stevenson, Angus, and Christine A. Lindberg, eds. New Oxford American Dictionary. 3rd ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010. Stone, Michael E. Scriptures, Sects, and Visions: A Profile of Judaism from Ezra to the Jewish Revolts. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980. Stone, Michael E., Benjamin G. Wright, and David Satran, eds. The Apocryphal Ezekiel. Atlanta: SBL, 2000. Strack, Hermann L., and Günter Stemberger. Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash. Translated by Markus Bockmuehl. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1991. Strack, Hermann L. and Paul Billerbeck. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch. 6 vols. München: Beck, 1922–1928. Strauss, Leo. “The Law of Reason in The Kuzari.” Pages 98–112 in Persecution and the Art of Writing. Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1952. Stroumsa, Gedaliahu G. “Form(s) of God: Some Notes on Metatron and Christ.” HTR 76.3 (1983): 269–88. Stroumsa, Sarah. “Saadya and Jewish Kalam.” Pages 71–90 in The Cambridge Companion to Medieval Jewish Philosophy. Edited by Daniel H. Frank and Oliver Leaman. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003. Suggs, Marion J. Wisdom, Christology and Law in Matthew’s Gospel. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014. Swartz, Michael D. “Ancient Jewish Mysticism.” Pages 33–48 in Jewish Mysticism and Kabbalah: New Insights and Scholarship, Jewish Studies in the Twenty-First Century. Edited by Frederick E. Greenspahn. New York: New York University Press, 2011. Swartz, Yossef. “Magic, Philosophy and Kabbalah: The Mystical and Magical Interpretation of Maimonides in the Later Middle Ages.” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 64/66 (2009): 99–132 (Hebrew). Talbert, Charles H. “The Myth of a Descending-Ascending Redeemer in Mediterranean Antiquity.” Pages 83–112 in The Development of Christology during the First Hundred Years, and Other Essays on Early Christian Christology. Leiden; Boston: Brill, 2011.

412

Bibliography

Talmage, Frank E. “Apples of Gold: The Inner Meaning of Sacred Texts in Medieval Judaism.” Jewish Spirituality 1 (1986): 313–56. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “The Concepts of Messiah and Messianism in Early Judaism.” Pages 79–115 in The Messiah: Developments in Earliest Judaism and Christianity. Edited by James H. Charlesworth, James Brownson, Michael T. Davis, Steven, J. Kraftchick, and Alan F. Segal. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1992. Talmon, Shemaryahu. “Waiting for the Messiah: The Spiritual Universe of the Qumran Covenanteers.” Pages 123–31 in Judaisms and Their Messiahs. Edited by Ernest S. Frerichs, William S. Green, and Jacob Neusner. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Taylor, Richard C. “The Agent Intellect as ‘form for us’ and Averroes’s Critique of Al-Farabi.” Tópicos (México) 29.1 (2005): 29–51. Teeter, Andrew D. “Torah, Wisdom, and the Composition of Rewritten Scripture: Jubilees and 11QPsa in Comparative Perspective.” Pages 233–72 in Wisdom and Torah: The Reception of ‘Torah’ in the Wisdom Literature of the Second Temple Period. Edited by Bernd U. Schipper and Andrew D. Teeter. Leiden: Brill, 2013. Teugels, Lieve M. The Meshalim in the Mekhiltot: An Annotated Edition and Translation of the Parables in Mekhilta de Rabbi Yishmael and Mekhilta de Rabbi Shimon Bar Yochai. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck. 2019. Thackeray, Henry St. J. et al., trans. Josephus. 10 vols. LCL. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1926–1965. Tobin, Thomas H. “Logos.” The Anchor Bible Dictionary 4 (1992): 352–53. Tobin, Thomas H. “The Prologue of John and Hellenistic Jewish Speculation.” CBQ 52.2 (1990): 252–69. Tobin, Thomas H. The Creation of Man: Philo and the History of Interpretation. WA: Catholic Biblical Association of America, 1983. Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. Wisdom in the Dead Sea Scrolls: She’s No Lady. Pages 207–18 in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà. Edited by Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Tishby, Isaiah. “Fear, Love, and Devekut in the Teaching of the Zohar.” Molad 19.151–152 (1961): 51–55 (Hebrew). Tishby, Isaiah. Mishnat Ha-Zohar. 2 vols. Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971. Tishby, Isaiah, and Yeruḥam F. Lachower, and David Goldstein. The Wisdom of the Zohar: An Anthology of Texts. Littman Library of Jewish Civilization (Series). Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 1989. Turner, Nigel, and James H. Moulton. A Grammar of New Testament Greek. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1906. Twersky, Isadore. Law and Philosophy: Perspectives on Maimonides’ Teaching. vol. 2. Ramat-Aviv: The Open University of Israel, 1992.

Bibliography

413

Urbach, Efraim E. The Sages: Their Concepts and Beliefs. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1987. Urbach, Efraim E. “The Traditions about Merkabah Mysticism in the Tannaitic Period.” Pages 1–28 in Studies in Mysticism and Religion: Presented to Gershom G. Scholem on His Seventieth Birthday by Pupils Colleagues and Friends. Edited by R. J. Zwi Werblowsky and Chaim Wirszubski. Jerusalem: Hebrew University Magnes Press, 1967. Vermès, Géza. Scripture and Tradition in Judaism: Haggadic Studies. 2nd rev. ed. Studia Post-Biblica; 4. Leiden: Brill, 1973. Vermès, Géza. “The Targumic Version of Genesis IV 3–16.” Annual of Leeds University Oriental Society 3 (1962): 98–99. Vermès, Pamela. “Buber’s Understanding of the Divine Name related to Bible, Targum and Midrash.” JJS 24 (1973): 147–66. Viano, Maurizio. “Representations of Wisdom in Mesopotamian Cuneiform Sources.” Pages 43–58 in Représentations et personnification de la sagesse dans l’Antiquité et au-delà. Edited by Stéphanie Anthonioz and Cécile Dogniez. Leuven: Peeters, 2021. Visotzky, Burton L. Golden Bells and Pomegranates: Studies in Midrash Leviticus Rabbah Texte Und Studien Zum Antiken Judentum 94. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2003. Visotzky, Burton L., trans. The Midrash on Proverbs. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1992. Wacholder, B. Zion. “The Date of the Mekilta de-Rabbi Ishmael.” Hebrew Union College Annual 39 (1968): 117–44. Waltke, Bruce K. The Book of Proverbs. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2004. Washington, Harold C. “The Strange Woman (‫אשה זרה‬/‫ (נכריהה‬of Proverbs 1–9 and Post-Exilic Judean Society.” Pages 217–42 in Second Temple Studies Vol. 2: Temple Community in the Persian Period. Edited by T. C. Eskenazi and Kent H. Richards. Sheffield, UK: JSOT Press, 1994. Washington, Harold C. Wealth and Poverty in the Instruction of Amenemope and the Hebrew Proverbs. SBLDS 142. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1994. Wasserstrom, Steven. “Sefer Yesira and Early Islam: A Reappraisal.” The Journal of Jewish Thought and Philosophy 3.1 (1994): 1–30. Weeks, Stuart. Instruction and Imagery in Proverbs 1–9. New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007. Weinfeld, Moshe. Deuteronomy and the Deuteronomic School. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1972. Weiss, Tzahi. Sefer Yesirah and Its Contexts: Other Jewish Voices. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2018. Westcott, B. Foss. Introduction to the Study of the Gospels with Historical and Explanatory Notes. Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1978. Westermann, Claus. The Parables of Jesus in the Light of the Old Testament. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1990.

414

Bibliography

White, L. Michael. Scripting Jesus: The Gospels in Rewrite. 1st ed. New York: HarperOne, 2010. Wilder, Amos N. “The Rhetoric of Ancient and Modern Apocalyptic.” Interpretation 25 (1971): 436–53. Wilkinson, Richard. The Complete Gods and Goddesses of Ancient Egypt. New York: Thames, 2003. Winston, David. “Was Philo a Mystic?” Pages 151–70 in The Ancestral Philosophy: Hellenistic Philosophy in Second Temple Judaism. Edited by Gregory E. Sterling. Providence, RI: Brown Judaic Studies, 2001. Winston, David. Logos and Mystical Theology in Philo of Alexandria. Cincinnati, OH: Hebrew Union College Press, 1985. Winston, David. The Wisdom of Solomon: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. Garden City, NY: Doubleday, 1979. Winston, David. “The Sage as Mystic in the Wisdom of Solomon.” Pages 387–97 in The Sage in Israel and the Ancient Near East. Edited by John G. Gammie and Leo G. Perdue. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns, 1990. Wise, Michael O. A Critical Study of the Temple Scroll from Qumran Cave 11. Chicago, IL: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, 1990. Wise, Michael O. The Dead Sea Scrolls-Revised Edition: A New Translation. Edited by Martin G. Abegg, and Edward M. Cook. New York: Harper Collins, 2005. Witherington, Ben. Jesus the Sage: The Pilgrimage of Wisdom. Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 1994. Wolfson, Elliot R. “The Hermeneutics of Visionary Experience: Revelation and Interpretation in the Zohar.” Religion 18 (1988): 311–45. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Asceticism and Eroticism in Medieval Jewish Philosophical and Mystical Exegesis of the Song of Songs.” Pages 292–308 in With Reverence for the Word: Medieval Scriptural Exegesis in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. Edited by Jane D. McAuliffe, Barry D. Walfish, and Joseph W. Goering. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Eunuchs Who Keep the Sabbath: Becoming Male and the Ascetic Ideal in Thirteenth-Century Jewish Mysticism.” Pages 15–185 in Becoming Male in the Middle Ages. Edited by Jeffrey J. Cohen and Bonnie Wheeler. New York: Garland, 1997. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Forms of Visionary Ascent as Ecstatic Experience.” Pages 209–35 in Gershom Scholem’s Major trends in Jewish mysticism 50 years after: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on the History of Jewish Mysticism. Edited by Peter Schäfer and Joseph Dan. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1993. Wolfson, Elliot R. “God, the Demiurge and the Intellect: On the Usage of the Word Kol in Abraham ibn Ezra.” Revue des études juives 149.1–2 (1990): 77–111. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Hebraic and Hellenic Conceptions of Wisdom in Sefer ha-Bahir.” Poetics Today (1998): 147–71.

Bibliography

415

Wolfson, Elliot R. “Judaism and Incarnation: The Imaginal Body of God.” Pages 239–54 in Christianity in Jewish Terms. Edited by Tikva S. Frymer-Kensky. Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 2000. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Letter Symbolism and Merkavah Imagery in the Zohar.” Pages 195–236 in Studies in the Literature of Jewish Thought Presented to Rabbi Dr. Alexander Safran. Edited by Moshe Hallamish and Alei Shefer. Ramat Gan: Bar-Ilan, 1990. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Metatron and Shiʾur Qomah in the Writings of Haside Ashkenaz.” Pages 60–92 in Mysticism, Magic and Kabbalah in Ashkenazi Judaism. Edited by Karl E. Grözinger and Joseph Dan. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter, 2012. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Mirror of Nature Reflected in the Symbolism of Medieval Kabbalah.” Pages 305–31 in Judaism and Ecology: Created World and Revealed Word. Edited by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2002. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Mystical Rationalization of the Commandments in Sefer Ha-Rimmon.” HUCA 59 (1988): 217–51. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Poetic Thinking” in Library of Contemporary Jewish Philosophers. Vol. 11. Edited by Hava Tirosh-Samuelson and Aaron W. Hughes. Leiden: Brill, 2015. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Negative Theology and Positive Assertion in the Early Kabbalah.” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 32/33 (1994): v–xxii. Wolfson, Elliot R. “The Secret of the Garment in Nahmanides.” Daʿat: A Journal of Jewish Philosophy and Kabbalah 24 (1990): xxv–xlix. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Traces of Philonic Doctrine in Medieval Jewish Mysticism: A Preliminary Note.” Studia Philonica 8 (1996): 99–106. Wolfson, Elliot R. “Via Negativa in Maimonides and Its Impact on Thirteenth-Century Kabbalah.” Pages 393–442 in Maimonidean Studies 5. Edited by Arthur Hyman, Alfred L. Ivry, James Diamond, and Maimonides. New York: The Michael Scharf Publication Trust of Yeshiva University Press, 2008. Wolfson, Elliot R. Abraham Abulafia – Kabbalist and Prophet: Hermeneutics, Theosophy, and Theurgy. Los Angeles: Cherub Press, 2000. Wolfson, Elliot R. Along the Path: Studies in Kabbalistic Myth, Symbolism, and Hermeneutics. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2012. Wolfson, Elliot R. Circle in the Square: Studies in the Use of Gender in Kabbalistic Symbolism. Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1995. Wolfson, Elliot R. Language, Eros, Being: Kabbalistic Hermeneutics and Poetic Imagination. New York: Fordham University Press, 2009. Wolfson, Elliot R. Luminal Darkness: Imaginal Gleanings from Zoharic Literature. Oxford: Oneworld, 2007. Wolfson, Elliot R. Through a Speculum that Shines: Vision and Imagination in Medieval Jewish Mysticism. NJ Princeton University Press, 2020. Wolfson, Elliot R. Venturing Beyond. Law and Morality in Kabbalistic Mysticism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006.

416

Bibliography

Wolfson, Harry A. Philo: Foundations of Religious Philosophy in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. 2 vols. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1968. Wolfson, Harry A. Studies in the History of Philosophy and Religion. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973. Wolters, Al. “Ṣôpiyyâ (Prov 31:27) as Hymnic Participle and Play on Sophia.” JBL 104.4 (1985): 577–87. Wright III, Benjamin G. “Ben Sia, Book of.” Page 437 in The Eerdmans Dictionary of Early Judaism. Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans; 2010. Whybray, Roger. N. Wisdom in Proverbs: The Concept of Wisdom in Proverbs 1–9. Studies in Biblical Theology 45. London: SCM Press, 1965. Yadin, Azzan. “Shenei Ketuvim and Rabbinic Interpretation.” JSJ 33.4 (2002): 386–410. Yadin, Azzan. “Theosophy and Kabbalistic Writing: Between Shaʿarei Orah and Shaʿarei Ẓedek.” Peʿamim: Studies in Oriental Jewry 104 (2005): 41–42. Yadin, Azzan. “‫ קול‬as Hypostasis in the Hebrew Bible.” JBL (2003): 616. Yoder, Christine D. Wisdom as a Woman of Substance: A Socioeconomic Reading of Proverbs 1–9 and 31:10–31. Berlin; Boston: De Gruyter, 2014. Yonge, Charles D. The Works of Philo: Complete and Unabridged. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995. Young, Brad H. The Parables: Jewish Tradition and Christian Interpretation. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1998. Young, Brad H. Jesus and His Jewish Parables: Rediscovering the Roots of Jesus’ Teaching. New York: Paulist Press, 1989. Yudelowitz, Mordechai. Yeshivat Pumbedita bi-Yemei ha-Amoraim (Hebrew). Tel Aviv: Israel Art Print, 1935. Zimmermann, Ruben. “Parabeln  – sonst nichts! Gattungsbestimmung jenseits der Klassifikation in ‘Bildwort’, ’Gleichnis’, ‘Parabel’ und ‘Beispielerzählung’.” Pages 383– 419 in Hermeneutik der Gleichnisse Jesu: Methodische Neuansätze zum Verstehen urchristlicher Parabeltexte. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2008. Zimmermann, Ruben., and Detlev Dormeyer. Kompendium der Gleichnisse Jesu. Gütersloh: Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 2007.

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Hebrew Bible Genesis 1 36, 66n, 82n, 85n 1–2 75n 1:1 66, 90n 1:1–2 65, 67 1:1–3 186n 1:1–18 84 1:3–5 99 1:7, 8 60n 1:10 220n 1:16–17 99 1:26–28 99 1:27 76n 1:20–21 97 1:26 74 1:26–27 74–75, 77, 78n, 97 2:2–3 99 2:7 74–75, 77 2:10 284 2:15 300n 2:24 286–87, 288n 5:24 217 6:1–4 155 6:6 95n 7 66n 8 66n 15:1 92n, 95 15:6 125, 128 15:1–6 103n 15:12 286n 17:1–11 97n 17:1–22 97n 22 183n 22:1–4 36n 22:2 123n, 158n 25 183n 27 183n 28:20–22 37n Exodus 3:2 3:14 4:31 7:1

106n, 126 86n, 177 133n 288n

12:6–15 12:15 12:19 12:42 13:2 13:21–22 14:19 14:29 15:1–18 15:3 19:18–20:1 19:19 20:2 23:20 23:20 f 23:20–23 23:21 24:2 24:10 24:10–11 24:12a 24:16–18 24:9–11 25:8 31:2–3 32:11–14 33:9 33:18 33:23 34:6 34:29 40:34

178 178 100, 112 101n, 113n 333n 106 109 258n 37n 133 108n, 114n 98 118 260 111n 133 215n, 262n, 279n 288 99 260 286n 106n 246n 108, 110 75n 37n 106 106 221n, 285n 107 160n 106, 193

Leviticus 20:7

48n

Numbers 6:25 7:89–8:1 11:12 12:6 12:8 12:13 23:21 24:7 27:14

160n 98 117n, 120, 121n, 123, 183n 92n, 95, 286n 286n 37n 107 183 96, 126

418

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources

Deuteronomy 1:32 4:4 4:5–8 4:33 4:36 5:31 6:4 10:20 11:22 13:4 13:5 18:1–2 18:15–18 26:1–12 30:20 31:3–8 32:6 32:29 32:39 32:40 33:8–11

100, 111, 128 222, 286 67, 141 98 98, 98n 287 278, 292 225n, 286–87, 304n 222 222 338n 287 192 37n 222, 285–87 106n, 109 120n 332n 259n, 285n 107 192n

Joshua 8:31–32

36

1 Samuel 1:1–28 2:1–10 3:21 4:22

37n 37n 92, 95, 186 106

2 Samuel 7:11–14 20:19

183n 119n

1 Chronicles 3:24 17:13–14 21:16 22:10–11 28:9–10

319 183n 111n 183n 183n

2 Chronicles 3:1 7:1–16 7:17–20 34:31

36n 106 183n 67n

1 Kings 2:3 5:9–14

36 71

8:10–13 8:22–53 22:19

106 37n 221n

2 Kings 10:1 10:1, 5 14:6 23:2

120 120n, 183n 36 67n

Ezra 6:18

36

Nehemiah 1:4–11 8:8 13:1

37n 36 36

Esther 2:7 2:20b

119n, 120, 183 120

Job

1:6 2:1 11:6–7 28:9 33:8 36:32 39:27

Psalms 1 1:2 2 2:7 2:7–8 12:2 19:8 21:4 31:24 33:6 68:16–18 89 89:27 89:27–30 89:28 92:3 104:24 107:20

155n 155n 174 99n 99n 99n 99n 67n, 140n 334n 183n, 188 156 183, 183n 119n 67n 183n 119n 144 106 189 183 183n, 188 316 299n 117n, 118n, 149 93n, 95

419

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Psalms (cont.) 110 119 119:97–98 122:17 139:13 147:15, 18 148:8 Proverbs 1:2–4 1:8–19 1:15–19 1:20–21 1:21–30 1:24–25 2:12–15 2:16–19 3:14, 19 3:18 3:19 3:19–20 5:3–5, 20 6:20–35 7:5–27 8:1, 22–31 8:1–4 8:2 8:12 8:17 8:22

8:22–24, 27, 30 8:22–31

8:23 8:25–27 8:30 8:30–31 8:31–32 8:36

183n, 188 55n, 56n 67n 320n 120n 144n 111n 54, 54n 174 175, 200n 175 174 176 174 174 159 300n 118n 120n, 122, 149 174 174 174 117n 175 118n 175n 174 59, 116, 118n, 120–21, 145n, 146n, 154–55, 158, 177, 182, 185, 194, 247, 284, 316 65 3, 43, 53n, 60n, 62, 64, 66, 77–78, 81n, 86, 118n, 199, 121–23, 143, 202, 207, 301, 316, 351 60n, 65, 67 142n 58n, 60, 60n, 116, 118, 131, 155, 213, 274, 276, 294 123, 157 175, 179 175, 200n

9:1 9:1–6 9:3 9:4 9:5 9:7–9 9:10 9:12, 18 9:13–18 9:17–18 10:1 14:5 16:15 18:10 20:6 21:3 25:1 31:17 31:27

162n, 177 165n 180n 177n 180n 164 166 175, 200n 174 180n 51 119n 108 111n 119n 47n 51, 52n 119n 52n, 53n

Song of Songs 2:16 6:3 7:2

19n 19n 121n

Isaiah 2:1 6:1 10:28–32 11:1–5 11:1–10 11:6 25:6 44:6 45:17 48:16 49:23 55:8 59:14

144n 246n 191n 191n 184 327n 165n 259n 186 177 121, 183n 310 61n

Jeremiah 1:2 10:12 46:25 51:15

144n 117n, 149 58n 117n

Lamentations 4:5

119

420

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources

Ezekiel 1 1:14 1:26–28 38

246n 292 260 327n

Daniel 7:9–10 7:13

260 216, 217n, 318, 319

Hosea 6:6

47n

Joel 2:26 3:17

111n 106

Nahum 3:8

58n, 120

Habbakuk 3:1

293

Zechariah 2:5 4:14 12:10–12

106 191n 183n

Malachi 1:11 3:23

111n 327b

Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, and Dead Sea Scrolls Apocryphon of Ezekiel 171n 1 Baruch 3:9–4:4

67n, 140n

2 Baruch lxxiv, 2; lxxvi, 2 320 1 Enoch xli, 9 xlvi, 3 xlviii, 2–10 xlviii, 6

320 320 320 320

li, 3 lv, 4 lxii lxx, 1

320 320 320 320

2 Enoch 215, 217 2 Esdras vii, 28–29 vii, 29 xi, 36–45 xii, 32 xiii, 3 xiii, 25 ff xiii, 32, 37, 52 xiv, 9

188n 319 320 319 319 319 188n 188n, 320

1 Maccabees 1:57

67n

Sirach 1:1–4 3:21–22 4:11 4:12 4:19–21 6:18 6:20–22 15:3 16:2 18:6 24 24:1 24:1–2 24:3 24:1–10 24:7 ff 24:8 24:8–11 24:9 24:9–10 24:10 24:17 24:19 24:19–21 24:21

178n 293 175 175 89 175 176n 178n 141 141 56, 63, 65–66, 67n, 71, 104, 142, 264, 285n 63, 68, 117 64 105n 117n 152n, 172n 178n 63, 110n, 159n 65, 66, 117–18 118 66 175n 177n 178n 162n

421

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Sirach (cont.) 24:23 24:23 f 24:33 31:19–24 31:22–27 31:25–31 32 32:1–13 37:27–31

66–67, 141–42, 144, 224n, 285n 149 64 164n 162n 164n 162n 178n 162n

Wisdom of Solomon 1:1 182n 1:1–8 110, 114 3:1–3 186n 3:8 182n, 193n 4:16 182n, 193n 5:1–2 182n, 193n 6:1–8 110, 329n 6:4 174, 142 6:10 182n, 193n 6:16 175 6:17 (18) 69, 147, 176n 6:17–18 174 6:22 174 7:1–2 117n, 118n 7:14 176n 7:15 70n, 159n 7:21 118n, 121 7:25 184 7:25–8:1 69, 159, 317, 351 7:25–30 159 7:26 108, 175n, 224n 7:27 152n, 179 8:2–9 159 8:3 159n 9:1 69 9:1–2 89, 105n, 178n 9:1–7 68 9:4 89, 178n 9:9 118n 9:9–10 174, 117n, 118n 9:14–17 71 9:18 68, 70, 174 10:4 68, 70, 159n 10:10 70n, 152n, 159n 10:9–10 173 14:2 118n

LXX version Gen 6:1–4 155n Gen 22:2 158n Num 11:12 117n Prov 1:24 176n Prov 8:22 120n Prov 8:30 116 Ps 33(32):6 144 Ps 147:4(15), 7(18) 144 Ps 154:3, 10–13 (= 11QPsa 18) 70, 71, 72n, 117n Sir 1:1 141 Sir 24:23 141 Ancient Jewish Sources Josephus Ant. I. 72–73 Ant. VI. 264

43n 42n

Philo Agriculture (Agr.) xii, 51 156n Cherubim (Cher.) vi, 18–19 288n xii–xv, 40–53 288n xiv, 49 159n xxxv, 125–27 285 De confusione linguarum (Conf.) viii, 28 225 ix, 30–32 288n xiv, 62–63 184n xiv, 63 156n, 196n, 318n xviii, 144–46 88n xx, 95–97 224 xxviii, 146 76n, 117n, 125n, 156n xxviii, 147 144 De ebrietate (Ebr.) viii, 30–31 159n, 194 viii, 31 145, 159, 284 xxxiii, 13–133 144n De fuga et inventione (Fug.) ix, 51–52 264 xx, 110 126n xxx, 166–168 286 xxxii, 179 225n xxxviii, 208 156n

422

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources

De gigantibus (Gig.) vi, 24–27 159n xi, 47–48 159n, 288n xi, 48–49 288n xiii, 58–64 285 xix, 61–62 287n De migratione Abrahami (Migr.) vii, 34–35 287 xxiv, 132 225n xxxiv, 174 76n De Opificio Mundi (Opif.) i–xi, 1–40 148n, 155n vi, 25 144n xx 156n xxii, 68–69 224n xxiii, 69 257n xxiii, 69–71 74 xxiii–xxiv, 69–72 149n, 155n xxiii–xxiv, 70–73 288n xxv, 77 74, 76 xxvi, 79–81 184n, 318n xxxi, 95–96 75 xlvi, 13 114n xlvi, 134–35 74, 75n xlvi, 135 108 xlvi–xlvii, 134–36 74n xlvi–li, 134–46 149n, 155n xlviii–xlix, 139–42 149n, 156n xlix, 140 156n De plantatione (Plant.) xii, 50 144n De posteritate Caini (Post.) iv, 12–13 285 ix, 29–30 287n xviii, 63–65 156n xlviii, 167–69 285n, 288n De praemiis et poenis (Praem.) vii, 43–46 127, 285n, 288n, 289 xiv–xxix, 79–172 195 xiv, 79–84 184 xvi, 95–97 184, 195n, 318n xxix, 165 194 xxix, 168–70 195 xxix, 169–71 185n xxix, 172 196n, 318n

De sacrificiis Abelis et Caini (Sacr.) iii, 8–10 288n De somniis (Somn.) I. ii, 2 76n I. viii, 75 88n I. xii, 64–67 185 I. xxiii, 151–52 287n I. xxxvii, 215 156n I. xxxvii, 215–17 257n I. xxvi, 160–165 257n I. xxxix, 227–229 257n II. v, 34 195n II. vi 144 II. x, 71 195n II. xxxvi, 242–43 286n II. xl, 231–232 286n II. xlv 144 De virtutibus (Virt.) x, 62–65 194n Legum allegoriae (Leg.) I. viii, 19–20 125, 184 I. xi, 49 61n, 159n I. xi, 31 75n I. xi, 31–32 74 I. xiii 144 I. xviii, 64 264 I. xix, 65 51n, 77n, 145, 184n, 284 I. xxiii, 69–73 76 I. xxix, 91 76n I. xxxiii 144 I. lvi–xlvii, 134–36 76n II. ix, 31 257, 287 II. xxi, 86 145n, 184n II. xxi 194 II. xxii 194 II. xxii, 87 127, 284, 289 II. xxii, 88 127, 284, 289 II. xxiv, 96 75n II. xxxi, 96 76n III. xv, 46 126n, 144, 285 III. xxii, 72 223 III. xxxi, 96 144 III. xxxiii, 100–103 223n, 287, 288n III. xxxv, 110f 288 III. xxxi 144 III. xcvi, 96 144

423

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Quaestiones et solutiones in Genesin (QG) 1, 4 77n, 144n 1, 8 144n 2, 62 77n Quaestiones et solutiones in Exodum (QE) 2, 40 286 Quis rerum divinar-um heres sit (Her.) ix, 45–46 287n lii, 259 287 lii, 264–65 286 xlviii, 230–36 224 xlviii, 235–36 289n Quod deterius potiori insidari soleat (Det.) liv, 113–14 159n Vita Mosis I, II (Mos.) II. i–vii, 1–44 318n II. iii, 14 195n II. vii, 43–44 195n II. vii, 44 195n, 318n II. li, 288 195n, 318n New Testament Matthew 1:25 185 3:2 175, 200n 3:13–16 158n 4:5 38n 4:18–20 175 6:2–13 38n 9:35 38n 11:16–20 185, 200 11:19 152 11:19b 153n 11:25–30 185 11:28–30 152 12:42 153n 13:53–58 176 21:46 175 22:1–10 151 22:1–14 178, 180 22:4 180 23:34 179 24 175n 24:45–51 151 25:1–13 151 26:26–28 177

Mark 1:14–20 3:1–6 6:3 6:12 12 13 14:12–26 14:22–24

175 38n 176 200n 158n 175n 177 177n

Luke 2:7 4:24–29 5:1–11 5:32 6:6–11 7:31–35 7:34 7:35 11:31 11:49 12:42–46 14:15 14:15–24 14:17 14:19–21 14:34 15:7 21 22:7–38 22:19–20 24:44

185 176 175 175, 200n 38n 185, 200 180 179, 180 152 179 151 151, 180 151 180 180n 176 175, 200n 175n 177 177n 152

John 1:1 1:1a 1:1–2 1:1–5 1:1–14 1:1–18 1:3 1:5 1:7–9 1:9 1:10 1:10–11 1:12 1:14

78n, 145n 86 114, 124, 126 82n 138, 207 116, 117n, 122, 128, 154, 199, 316 122 113 113 113 98 88 98, 114, 128, 175 112–14, 124, 127, 160, 193

424 John (cont.) 1:14b 1:15 1:17 1:18 1:29 1:35–51 3:16 3:19 4:1 4:5 4:13–14 5:21–40 5:24–29 6:35 6:41–58 7:28 7:37 7:46 8:12 8:46 8:56–59 8:57–58 8:59 9:22 9:35 10:7 10:25 11:4 11:25 11:27 12:21 12:34 12:42 12:44 12:46 13:1–32 13:3–17 13:33 14:2–3 14:6 15:1 15:1–17 15:4–10 15:15 16:2 16:27

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources 90, 127 98 124 123, 124, 126, 158, 185 178 175 157 89n 98 89n 177n, 194, 361 186 197 144n, 174, 175n, 177, 194, 361 89, 178 175 175 89n 175n 176 104, 128 128n 176 82n 175 175n 176 175n 175n 186, 189, 224, 319, 359 102n, 126n 186, 189, 224, 319 82n 175 175n 178 176 175 198 174, 175n 175n 176 144, 200n 176n 82n 176

17:17 20:31

176 186, 189, 224, 319, 359

Acts 13:14

38n

Hebrews 1:2 1:3 9:14

78n, 145n 122 157n

1 Corinthians 2:6–8 8:6

162n 78n

2 Corinthians 4:4

157n

Colossians 1:15–18

78n, 122, 160n

Revelation 3:14

78n

Rabbinic sources Mishnah m. Ḥagigah 2:1 260n m. Horayot 3:8 48n m. Maʿaser Sheni 5:12 107n m. Megillah 3:3 48n 4:9 259n m. Middot 5:4 38 m. Pirkei ʾAvot 1:1 41, 48n 1:2 41n 2:7 39 3:2 106, 107 3:3 48n 3:6 107 6:5 47n 6:6 146n, 194n

425

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Mishnah (cont.) m. Sanhedrin 6:5 11:2–4 m. Sotah 9:15

107 41 109n

Babylonian Talmud b. ʿAbodah Zarah 3b 216n, 218, 261n, 262 b. Bava Batra 10a 108 16b 354n b. Berachot 6a 106 17a 47n, 108 32b 47n 33b 259n 53b 48n b. Gittin 56a–b 39n b. Ḥagigah 11b–16a 260n 12a 14a 319 15a, b 216n, 218, 257n, 260n b. Nedarim 39b 270n 40a 107 b. Megillah 15b 39n 25a 259n 29a 107 b. Menaḥot 43b 106 110a 47n b. Pesaḥim 54a 120 54b 270n 56a 291 b. Qiddushin fol. 71a 323n b. Šabbot (Shabbot) 12b (baraita), 107n 80b 260n 153a 151

b. Sanhedrin 32b 38n, 42n 38 216n, 218 38b 262n 42a 39n 65b 259 88b 38n 104b 247n b. Sotah 48b 109n 49b 44n Jerusalem Talmud y. Ḥagigah 77a–d y. Megillah 75c (4:10) y. Šabbot 1:4

260n 259n 39n

Tosefta t. Horayot 2:7 110n t. Kelim Bava Qamma 1:10–12 107n 1:12 320n t. Sanhedrin 3:4 42n 4:5 107n 7:1 42n 11:7 42n 14:12 42n t. Sotah 13:3 109n Tannaitic Midrashim Sifre to Deuteronomy ch. 37 3: B ch. 62 ch. 70 ch. 329 I. 2: A-B ch. 342 I–V ch. 352 Sifre to Zutta to Numbers Naso V. 2 i. 4:D Naso VI. 24 i, 2: B–C Naso VI. 24–25 Shelah XV. 30 i, 1:C

146n 107n 107n 259n 191n 107n 107n 160n 108n 259n

426

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources

Mekhilta Mek. d’R. Ishmael Amalek 3:163–64 3:163–76

4 4:3–4

Baḥodesh

107 107n, 114n 108n, 114n 114n



Beshallaḥ 6 6:17–18 12:73 14:100–109

133n 106n 259n 106n



Pisḥa 6:70–80 13:9–11 14:64–69

107n 134n 257



Shirata 3:50–63 4:21–31 9:123–25 35:5

18n 133n 120 121n

Mek. d’R. Simeon b. Yoḥai

Baḥodesh 5:20–39 133n 126 30:1 35:5

Beshallaḥ Shirata

110n 133n 121n

Amoraic and Later Midrashim Midrash Rabbah Genesis Rabbah i, 1 60n, 78n, 103n, 105, 118n, 119n, 120n, 121, 125, 145, 224n, 274, 285n i, 1–8 143n, 146n i, 1–10 142n i, 4 118n ii, 4 320 iii, 6 257n

viii, 5, 8 145n viii, 9 145n x, 7 109n xii, 6 257n xxi, 5 258n xxxi, 5 142n xvii, 5 142n xli, 3 257n xliv 183n xliv, 17 142n Leviticus Rabbah ii, 2 195n ix, 7 195n xi, 3 142 xiv, 1 320 xx, 2 257n xxvii, 12 195n xxxi, 8 108 Numbers Rabbah xii, 5 261, 217n xiii, 5 257n xv, 6 108n Pesiqta Rabbah xx, 1 (170a) 142n xxxi, 7 (184a) 106n xxxvi, 4 (192a) 258n Qoheleth Rabbah 9:8 151 Midrash Proverbs 22:29 (49a) 97, 109, 218n Pirke d’R. Eliezer ch. 11. 258n ch. 14. 14a, ii 300n Tanḥuma Ki Tissaʾ xxxiii 160n Targums Targum Neofiti Gen 1–2 Gen 1:1 Gen 1:1–2 Gen 1:1–3 Gen 1:3–5 Gen 1:16–17 Gen 1:20–21 Gen 1:26–27 Gen 1:26–28 Gen 2:2–3 Gen 2:3 Gen 2:15

101 118n 101n 186n 99 99 97 97 99 97 186n 300n

427

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Targums Targum Neofiti (cont.) Gen 15:6 100, 104n, 111 Gen 17:1–22 97n Ex 3:12–14 100 Ex 12 101 Ex 12:12–13 126 Ex 12:19 112 Ex 12:42 101n Num 6:27 100, 111 Dt 1:32 111, 157n Dt 1:32 100 Dt 1:42–43 97n Dt 4:33 98 Dt 4:36 98n Dt 5:5 98 Dt 31:3–8 109 Dt 31:6 126 Targum Onqelos Gen 2:7 259 Gen 3:5 259 Gen 6:6 95n Gen 17:1–22 97n Ex 25:8 193 Ex 34:6 107 Num 23:21 107 Num 27:14 157n Dt 1:42–43 97n Dt 32:4 107 Targum Pseudo-Jonathan Gen 17:1–22 97n Dt 1:42–43 97n Dt 31:6 126 Targum of the Prophets Targum Malachi 3:1 126 Targum Isaiah 6:1–8 99n 30:11 126 30:27–33 126n 48:3 126n 48:10–16 126n 65:1 126n Fragmentary Targum Gen 1:1 116–17 Memar Marqah (Samaritan literature) I. 1–4 110n II. 10 214n

IV. 2 IV. 7 IV. 11

214n, 253n 214n, 253n 253n

Classical Literature Aristotle De Anima (On the Soul) Introduction, 69–70 II. ii III. v III. v, 430a Metaphysics XII. vi, 1072a Plato Republic II. 378d VII. 514a–520a Timaeus 34b–36b 41a–b 41–42

238n 237n 232n, 234n 220n, 234n 219n

225n 76n 76n 76n 231n

Plutarch De Iside et Osiride (= Isis and Orisis) 43, 53, 59 61n Plotinus Enneads I. 1.8.9–10 III. 8.9 IV. 8.1 V V. 3.17–37 V. 1.6.37–9 V. 3.13.1–6 V. 4.1 V. 4.1–2 VI. 8.20.9–16 VI. 9.1.1–4 VI. 9.9–11 IX. 5

2n 2n 286n 274n 286n 2n 2n 2n 268n 2n 2n 286n 274n

Theology of Aristotle

234n, 275n

Enumah Elish I. 79–108

60n

428

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources

Early Christian and Gnostic Sources

Pistis Sophia

257n

Corpus Hermeticum (Hermetica) Poimandres libellvs i 258n Trismegistus Hermes 258

Philosophumena of Hippolytus

257n

Irenaeus Adversus haereses (Adv. Haer.) 1.1–11.5 367n 23.1–24.7 257n 30.1–7 258n 30.1–15 214n Justin Martyr Dialogue with Trypho 11:2, 4 103n 55–62 214n 56:1–22 103n 56:9–13 128n 60:1–4 104n 61:1 103n 61:1–5 103n 126:4 128n 128:1 103n, 128 Origen De Principiis (Princ.) 1.2 1.2.2 1.2.3 1.2.6 Contra Celsum VI. 24–30 VI. 24–38

143n 143n 144n 144n 214n 260n

Nag Hammadi codices (NHC) Gospel of Truth 81n Gospel of Thomas 81n The Hypostasis of the Archons II. 4 259n, 260n The Apocalypse 214n, 257n of Adam Odes of Solomon

81n

Philosophical Sources Judah Halevi Kuzari I. 75–77 I. 99 I. 109 III. 23 III. 73 IV. 3 V. 10–14

326n 325n 326 325n 270n 247n 240n

Saadia Gaon The Book of Beliefs and Opinions Introductory Treatise v. 16–20 324n Treatise II. x, 99 110n Treatise VIII. vi, 246 324n Solomon ibn Gabirol The Kingly Crown I–IX IX Fons Vitae

220n 219n 220n

Gersonides The Creation of the World III. 6, Part 2: chs. 1–8 231n The Wars of the Lord I. 1 235n I. 4 236n I. 8 237n Al Farabi Political Regime Part I. 8 On the Perfect State I. 1–3 On the Intellect 68 68–78

233n 233n 234n 233n

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Maimonides The Guide of the Perplexed (Shlomo Pines) I. Introduction, 6 221n I. 1 221n, 227n I. 2 221n I. 4 221n I. 6 272n I. 15 221n I. 21 221n I. 27–28 99n I. 31 238n I. 32 228n I. 34 238n I. 61 272n, 280n I. 64 247n I. 68 226n, 238n I. 69 231n I. 70–71 250n, 281n I. 71 281n I. 72 230n I. 73 221n, 229n I. 76 247n II. 1–2 226n II. 4 230n II. 6 221n, 241n II. 7 230n II. 10 281n II. 11 227n, 231n, 233n, 234n II. 12 221n, 226n, 227n II. 19 228n II. 21 227n II. 29 327n, 328 II. 30 272n II. 36 228n, 229n, 238n, 243n, 328n II. 37 229n, 243n II. 38 228n, 229n II. 39 243n II. 44 243n II. 45 230n, 328n II. 51 238n III. 1–7 250n III. 2 228n III. 7 250n III. 51 229n, 230n, 240, 242n, 243n, 327n III. 54 228n

429

Mishneh Torah Teshuvah (The Laws of Repentance) 8:2–3 (90a–90b) 327n 8:8 326n 9:2 (92a) 327n, 329n Hilkhot Melakhim (The Laws of Kings and Wars): Treatise V 1:8 328 11:1 328n 11:1–4 327n 11:4 327n 12:1–2 327n 12:4 327n 12:5 328n Commentary on the Mishnah Tractate Sanhedrin 10:1 328n Mystical Sources Abraham bar Hiyya Sefer Megillat ha-Megalleh 5, 10 273 48 324n 52 273n Hegyon ha-Nefesch ha-Atzuvah Col. 1. 39, 46, 55 273n Col. 1. 41 273n Abulafia Ner ʾElohim 170a 343n Ḥayyei ha-Nefesh 7–8 215n 63 243n 93 215n ʾOẓar ʿEden Ganuz 12a 247n 111–12 295n 129–35 295n Sefer Haftarah 34 244n 38 244n Sefer ha-Geʾulah 73b 244n, 245n Sefer Ḥayye ha-ʿOlam Ha-Baʾ 7a 343n 8 332n

430

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources

Abulafia Sefer Ḥayye ha-ʿOlam Ha-Baʾ (cont.) 9 244n 12–17 331n 13a 323n, 336n 16–17 332n 28 333n 41 248 73a–b 330 Sefer ha-Melamed 206a 332n Sefer ha-ʾOt 129–30 337n Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Ḥokhmot 23a–b 248 23b–24a 244n 24 331n Sefer Mafteaḥ ha-Shemot 81–82 332n 150 332n Sefer ʾOr ha-Sekhel 46 244n 115 331n 118–19 331n, 334n 141 334n Sefer Sitrei Torah 53 333n 124a 248n 129b–130a 332n 130a 335n 132b 247n, 296n, 336n 134b 236n 163a 297n 192b 310 Ve-zot le-Yehudah 23 331n Asher ben David Sefer ha-Yihud 75 75–76 80 105–6 106

292n 294n 292n 275n 294n

Azriel of Gerona Commentary on the Talmudic Aggadot 8a 276n 37 276n

41a–41b 276n 41a–44b 276n 41b 194n 61a 292n 41b–42a 273n 45a 273n 46a–47a 273n Commentary on Sefer Yetsirah 453 293n Ezra of Gerona Commentary on the Song of Songs Introduction 291 1:2 275n 3:9 275n 4–6 338n Hekhalot Synopse §§ 107–222 §§ 206–213 §§ 222–228 §§ 235–238 §§ 281–294 §§ 346–352 §§ 368–375 §§ 685–704 §§ 695–704 Gikatilla Shaʿar ha-Niqqud fols. 33a–38b fols. 38a, 39b fols. 33a, 33b, 36–38b fol. 39b Ginnat ʾEgoz 5c 5d 12d 13a 13b 22a 22a–23c 23b 36a 37b 52d 54b 65a 65b

217 217n 218n 112n 217n, 261n 218n 218n 218n 246

252n 250n 252n 250n 280n 280n 280n 280n 280n 281n 280n 281n 281n 280n 306n 306n 281n 281n

431

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources Gikatilla Ginnat ʾEgoz (cont.) 106 158 280–81 315 330 330–38 360 Shaʿarei ʾOrah Introduction, 5, 49–50, 136 33 Shaʿarei Ẓedek 3b 11b 12 fols. 15–16 16 20 fols. 21b-22b 36 fols. 37–44 43 fols. 43–45 fols. 45–50 46 46a

249n, 255n 307n 255n 248n 307n 248n 307n 307n 341n 341n 340n 340n 340n 322n, 323n, 344n 341n 339n 342n, 344n 342n 342n 343n 341n 360n 340n

Jacob ben Sheshet Sefer ha-ʾEmunah ve-ha-Bittahon 2:340–41 292n 2:393–99 292n Moses De Leon Sefer Sheqel ha-Qodesh 27 33 71–74 84 91–95 Sefer ʾOr Zaruʿa 251 260 271

338n 338n 338n 338n 338n 251n 279n 279n

283 285 286 Nahmanides Commentary on the Torah 7

251n, 279n 251n 279n

244n

Sefer ha-Ḥesheq (Ashkenazi literature) par. 8. 2a 323n par. 14. fol. 3a 323n par. 18. fol. 3b 323n fols. 7b–8a 323n Sefer ha-Bahir Section(s): 1–54 3 7 7–8 22 43 45 46 48 52 53 54–55 60 63 64–65 71 87 90 93 94 97–99 98 142 162 Sefer ha-Zohar I. 21a I. 34b I. 35b I. 126b I. 145a, 248b

353n 353n 353n 20n 274 247n 247n 293 274n, 291n 247n 274 353n 291n 353n 353n 274n 274 294n 353n 274 264n 247n 353n 353n 301n 248n 301n 300n 301n

432 Sefer ha-Zohar (cont.) II. 65b–66b 301n II. 87b 301 II. 118b–119a (Raya Mehemna) 301n II. 216b 302n III. 4b, 267b 301n III. 80b 301 III. 226b, 228b 301n Sefer Zohar Ḥadash 106d 301 106d–107a 300n

Index of Ancient and Medieval Sources 3 Enoch iii–xvi v–vii xi–xii xvii xviii xix–xxvi xxiii xxiv xxv xlviii cv, 2

217n, 261n 262n 262n 112n, 217–18, 224n, 245n, 262n 262n 262n 218n, 262n 218n, 262n 218n, 262n 217n, 261, 262n, 263n, 320 188n

Index of Subjects Abraham 36n, 97n, 103–4, 123n, 128 Yaho’el identified with 296n Active Intellect. See intellect angelic conception (merkavah) of  221–22, 239–40, 249, 252, 334, 351 apotheotic experience related to 238, 242, 327n, 334–35 devekut (human intellect’s conjunction with) to 29, 231–38, 295–98, 325, 328, 334, 348, 370 emanation of 219–20, 226, 234, 237, 243, 252n, 254, 325 Messiah identified with 331 Metatron identified with 251–53, 333–36, 348, 350–51 Patriarchs with 242n Philo’s Logos related to 215–16, 218, 221, 246, 253 philosophical (Aristotelian and Neoplatonic) 220, 232, 359, 375 prophecy and providence related to 228–30, 243–44, 252n, 326 pure thought and 232 sefirot and 255, 296n, 355, 358 self-messianization and 359–60 shekhinah and 250, 337, 350 Tetragrammaton and 244, 350 Torah identified with 239, 248, 253, 330–32, 336–38, 349, 354–55, 361 Tree of Life identified with 244, 336 unio mystica to 238–41, 245, 331, 335, 340, 343 ẓaddik united with 331n, 339n, 361, 363 Adam. See also man first 257n primordial 257n, 259 Alef 251n, 274–75 Alexander (of Aphrodiasis) 231, 236–37. See also Themistius allegory 137, 173n, 203, 222, 224n, 348 allegoresis 270–71, 350 philosophical 26n, 244, 268–71, 346–47, 350–51 symbolism and 26, 30, 115, 137, 144, 271, 363, 371

Amun 58n, 65, 119n. See personified Wisdom Teacher related to 59–63 angels. See also merkavah imagery angelology 18 angelomorphization 62, 98, 105, 137, 205 angelus interpres 252 of the Lord 109, 111n, 126, 214, 214n, 333 anthropomorphism 95–96, 218 mythic strategies and 302–11, 342–44, 352, 361 sefirot related to 272–73, 282, 293, 307, 321, 367 anthropopathism 270n, 352 apophatic approach 224, 268–69, 284, 311. See negative theology apotheosis 242, 321, 335 experience of 332–35, 338, 341, 359 archangels (Michael, Raphael, Gabriel, and Nuriel) 76n, 104, 251, 280. See also merkavah imagery; Metatron Aristotelianism 82, 219, 221, 226, 303, 323, 327, 350 immortality and 237–38 Jewish conception of 232 Neo- 239–42, 249n, 253, 290, 298, 331, 334, 343n Neoplatonized 219–20, 230, 233–35, 329n atsilut 220, 340n. See also shefa; emanation banquet 89n, 160–64, 165n, 167, 168n, 180–81, 200, 252. See also Kingdom of God Last Supper and 176–78, 204, 361 Bar Kokhba 134, 135n, 318 Ben 323n, 333. See Son of Man Bezalel 75, 76n binah (third sefirah) 57, 211, 282, 292n, 294n, 307 Logos and 267, 369 sefirot related to 273–76, 293, 308–9, 311, 343 ẓaddik connected to 340–41, 343, 360, 362–63

434 binitarianism 134, 136, 138. See also two powers in heaven chariot 218n, 262, 280, 292n, 296n, 301n. See merkavah imagery Account of 221 archangels identified with 251 charioteer and 250, 281 concealed and revealed 281–82 divine 260, 291–93, 321 Metatron identified with 251 Christology 82, 122–23, 132, 170, 265 Logos related to 82, 96, 132, 136–37, 145 low and high 84, 138–39 Wisdom related to 132, 137, 147, 169, 173, 181 Cloud Man 319 devekut 1, 3, 5, 6, 21–27, 211, 222–23, 249. See also noetic union Active Intellect (human intellect’s conjunction with) related to 29, 231–38, 295–98, 325, 328, 334, 348, 370 ideal of 244–45, 370–71 merkavah imagery related to 252–55, 284–89, 290, 305, 329–30, 337, 346–51, 359–60 prophecy in devekut to Active Intellect 227–32, 240–44, 247–48, 252n related to ẓaddik 339–43, 360–63 sefirot related to 30, 292–5, 304, 310 Tetragrammaton related to 277, 297, 299–300, 302–4, 310–11, 331, 350 theurgy and 338, 340–44, 354–59 Demiurgical Logos 264, 353n. See Logos Divine Law 49 Divine Logos 76–77, 87, 102–3, 132, 149, 156, 223–25, 284n divine essence 108n, 127n, 160, 293, 295, 334, 365, 376–77 divine immanence and transcendence related to 246, 284–85, 289, 370–72 Ein Sof related to 276, 282 sefirot related to 211, 224–25, 268, 272–73, 303 Tetragrammaton identified with 112, 276–77, 279, 292, 296, 300, 302, 307–10

Index of Subjects divine intellect 240, 241n, 297n, 298, 331–32, 335, 337. See intellect divine immanence 62, 98, 127n, 160, 266, 344, 357, 363, 367 divine essence and 246, 284–85, 289, 370–72 divine sonship 156, 183, 188, 316. See Son of God divine providence 219, 221, 227–32, 259 divine presence 99, 112, 186n, 266n, 286n, 300, 310, 356 merkavah imagery and 217–18 Messiah related to 320–21, 338, 359 Metatron as the Prince of 245n, 217, 261 shekhinah related to 106–10, 159–60, 193, 218, 261, 263, 267, 356 unio mystica related to 310 divine transcendence 96, 99n, 136, 223, 309, 310n, 354 divine essence 246, 284–85, 289, 370–72 divine thought 55n, 274, 293. See pure thought dreams 243 ecstasy 280, 294, 309, 311, 331–32, 339 inspired 286–87 unio mystica related to 245, 297, 303, 350 Egyptian literature 38n, 53n, 58, 62, 69, 82n, 183, 339n. See also Mesopotamian literature Egyptian god, Amo(u)n 58, 119n Gnosticism (and Mesopotamian literature) related to 23n, 261 goddess (Ma’at, Isis) 58, 60 ʾehyeh 98n, 99–100, 276n Ein Sof 2, 220n, 267, 274n, 291, 298, 310, 353 divine essence as 276, 282 ḥokhmah related to 253, 275, 294n, 295, 307–8, 341, 356 keter related to 274–75, 292n, 307, 341 Elijah 190, 192–93, 242, 323, 327n Elohim 96n, 278–79, 292, 296n, 333, 350–51 Tetragrammaton and 252–23 emanation 69, 159, 249, 267, 279n, 322, 340, 355–56. See also shefa; atsilut Active Intellect of 219–20, 226, 234, 237, 243, 252n, 254, 325 bidirectional 340, 360 Torah of 301

Index of Subjects Enoch-Metatron 217n, 261, 319 Epistemology 221, 226–29, 233, 235, 248, 303 esoteric tradition 5, 17, 218, 221, 264–65, 343 Essenes 42, 186 ex nihilo 143, 227, 232, 237 First Cause 219, 230n, 231–33, 288 First Man 156, 188 gender 105, 108, 109n, 110n, 279, 294, 305, 311 symbolism 72, 258n, 264 gematria (gematriot) 45n, 252n, 281, 306, 331, 333, 359 Tetragrammaton via 323n, 336 Glory 40n, 63n, 72n, 82n, 90n, 157n, 159–60, 193, 258, 291 kavod related to 217–18, 246–48, 262, 266 inner (kavod penimi) 263, 267 memra related to 100, 106, 127–28, 126n, 113–14 shekhinah related to 97, 99, 106, 113, 127, 320, 266, 160 Throne of 217, 246–47, 270, 296, 301 Gnosticism 12, 15, 80–81, 133n, 260 dualism in 135n Egyptian and Mesopotamian literature 23n, 261 motif in 247n, 258n myth in 4, 14n, 16n, 23n, 83, 257, 258n Samaritan literature and 14, 145n Valentinian Gnosis 24n Greek Logos 28, 74, 77–79, 93n, 102, 194. See Logos Jewish Wisdom and 3, 28, 73, 91, 140, 142, 144, 149, 194, 348 Philo’s Logos related to 91, 102 traditions centered on 140, 158, 181, 202–3, 358, 365, 368 ha-teva (Nature) 252 hashmal 246, 251, 280–81 heavenly agent 88, 110, 155, 186, 199 heavenly voice 98–99, 245n. See also hypostasis Hebraism and Hellenism 41, 43–44, 81, 84, 168, 260–61, 353–54 henosis 286–87. See also ittihad, unio mystica

435 Heraclitus 2 hieros gamos 159n, 287n High Priest 144n, 191, 194, 323n, 336–37 ḥokhmah (second sefirah) 57, 63, 88, 160, 211, 251, 255, 297. See personified Wisdom Ein Sof related to 253, 275, 294n, 295, 307–8, 341, 356 pure thought identified with 274–75, 297 Torah identified with 267, 276, 300–1, 353, 356 Tree of Life as preexistent Torah related to 300–1 unio mystica via 295, 299, 310–11, 343, 357 upper and lower 246, 273–76, 307, 353 Tetragrammaton with 276–80, 331, 336–37 yod involved with 274–75, 278, 280, 301, 307–10, 356 Holy Spirit 109, 333 hypostasis 128, 160, 166n, 247n, 264, 325, 353n Metatron as 215–16, 266 Neoplatonic 2n, 54n, 112n, 251n, 278 primordial Man as 257 voice as 98–99, 245n Yahweh as 58, 60, 89, 99 Image of God (imago dei) 24 immortality 229, 231n, 236, 297, 325–28, 355 Aristotelianism and 237–38 integrative union 240, 244 intellect See Active Intellect acquired 236–38, 297 human 3, 23, 29, 225–45, 254, 295–98, 325, 333–40, 343, 346, 348–50, 355, 359, 367, 370 passive and potential 220, 231n, 237 perfection of 228–230, 238–40, 328, 330–33 Islam 287n, 328n mystical tradition 23n, 267n philosophers 235–36, 254, 350 Al-farabi 233–34 Averroes 220, 230, 234, 245 philosophy 235, 283, 375

436 ittihad (union) 240, 287. See unio mystica; henosis Jacob 63n, 66n, 97n, 183n, 291 Jesus Messiah identified with 337 Son of God as 78, 158, 160, 179, 185, 224, 265, 316 begotten 87–88, 120, 123, 157–58, 188, 199, 213, 202 Son of Man as 180, 186, 189, 216–17, 224, 319 Last Supper of 176–78, 204, 361 Laws of Moses related to 174n memra and 100–4, 157 Metatron and 215, 319 personified Wisdom identified with 176, 179 teacher (or sage) in the images of 153, 172, 179, 180, 200, 203, 256, 352, 361 Jewish Wisdom 16n, 23n, 43, 155, 161, 168–69, 173, 264n. See Wisdom Greek Logos and 3, 28, 91, 140, 142, 144, 149, 194, 348 Torah related to 53–54, 56, 62, 125, 127, 190, 199 Johannine Logos. See Logos firstborn (or son) image of 185–86, 217, 224, 316 memra and 100–4, 157 messianic (kingly) image of 316 personified Wisdom and 150, 154–57, 169–70, 199, 316 Philo’s Logos and 80, 83, 87, 88, 90–91, 123–26 shekhinah and 160, 193 kavod 106, 245 angelic creature 246–47 Glory related to 217–18, 246–48, 262, 266 inner (kavod penimi) 263, 267 shekhinah and 218n, 246n, 247, 263 upper and lower 294n visible and invisible 245 kelim (hayyot, ofnanim, kerubim, serafim)  251–52, 262 keter (keter ʿelyon) 267, 296–97, 309, 311, 340–41, 355–56, 369, 360–61. See also ḥokhmah; binah

Index of Subjects Ein Sof related to 274–75, 292–93, 307, 341 identified with Tetragrammaton 274, 276, 292n, 308, 362 messianic figures (priestly and supernal) associated with 336–37 Kingdom of God 171n, 173, 177, 180, 185, 319n. See also banquet and World to Come 190, 197, 317 Last Supper 176–78, 204, 361. See also Jesus laws 40–41, 46, 57, 64, 77, 90, 98, 135n, 328n Jesus related to 174n ritual 48n, 49n, 56–57, 90 Logos binah and 267, 369 Christology related to 82, 96, 132, 136–37, 145 Son of God identified with 88 theology of 134–35, 145–46, 158, 199, 204–6, 215n Logos of God 77, 144n, 155–56, 223. See Logos man 16n, 75n, 108n, 144n. See Adam divine 298 earthly and heavenly 257n primordial 257 second 258n Tetragrammaton and 258 memra 79, 93, 95, 186 Glory related to 100, 106, 127–28, 126n, 113–14 Jesus and 100–4, 157 Johannine Logos (or Jesus) and 100–4, 157 Metatron and 216–17 personified Wisdom related to 97, 104–6, 157 Philo’s Logos and 96–98, 102, 156 shekhinah (and voice) related to 97–100, 185n Tetragrammaton and 100, 113–14 Memra-Logos 82n, 86n, 90n, 97, 138, 158. See also two powers in heaven theology of 134, 136–37, 205 merkavah mysticism 18, 131n, 217, 260n, 263n, 265

437

Index of Subjects merkavah imagery 248n, 309. See chariot; angels yod and 281–82 devekut to 252–55, 284–89, 290, 305, 329–30, 346–51, 337, 359–60 Tetragrammaton related to 254–55, 280–82, 292, 296n, 350, 306, 355, 358 Metatron identified with 131, 215–16, 218, 221, 246–47, 251–52, 260–61, 320 divine presence and 217–18 meshalim (mashal) 151, 153–54, 159, 170–73, 203–4 Messiah Active intellect identified with 331 apocalyptic 196, 326 Davidic 191, 319 divine presence related to 320–21, 338, 359 false messiahs 313 Jesus as 337 Johannine Logos related to 91, 316 keter related to images of 336–37, 362 Metatron identified with 320 New Torah identified with 332, 337–38, 360n, 362 Philo’s Logos and 184–85, 194–99, 316, 329, 357–59, 361, 375 priest related to 190–94, 199, 315–16, 322, 329, 337 redemption of 313n, 315n royal (kingly) 188–89, 318–19, 338–39, 360 Son of God and 87, 139, 146, 183, 185, 186n, 339, 358 Son of Man related to 319–20 Teacher of Righteousness and 191–93, 329 ẓaddik related to supernal 336–38, 341, 344, 359–60 Messiahs of Aaron and Israel 190–93, 270, 316, 329, 337. See Messiah messianism 6, 11, 113, 187, 197, 323, 359 apocalyptic (or acute) 195, 313–15, 318, 321, 325–26, 329–30, 345 eschatological 191, 198, 329 spiritualized 196, 317–18, 321, 325 Stoic Logos related to 185, 195, 213, 284, 329 noetic union related to 359–61

metaphor 47n, 76, 114n, 163n, 177, 204, 361. See also symbolism allegory associate with 55, 270n father-son 334 light 88n, 307n personified Wisdom’s speech in 151, 162, 166 Metatron 215–16, 218, 221, 251–52, 348. See also archangels Active Intellect identified with 251–53, 333–36, 348, 350–51 hypostasis 215–16, 266 Jesus and 215, 319 memra and 214, 217 merkavah imagery identified with 131, 215–16, 218, 221, 246–47, 251–52, 260–61, 320 Messiah identified with 320 personified Wisdom involved with 351–53 Philo’s Logos and 244–48, 253–56, 348–52 Sar Torah related to 217, 245, 261–62 second God 217 shekhinah involved with 218, 245, 336 Son of God and 336 Son of Man and 318n, 319–20 Tetragrammaton (lesser YHWH) as 252, 261–63, 351 Throne of Glory identified with 217–18 Yahoʾel and 214n, 322–23, 351 ẓaddik and 323 Mesopotamian literature 58–62, 66, 69, 121–22, 157, 183 Egyptian literature (and Gnosticism) related to 23n, 261 middle-Platonism 73n, 74, 82, 126n, 132, 145n, 148 minim 135 Modalism 136 mythologoumenon 322n natural law 49–50, 55n, 306n. See laws negative theology 220n. See apophatic approach Neologism 118n Neoplatonism 23, 23n, 219, 253 hypostases in 251n, 278 mystical union in 240

438 Neoplatonists 86 Plotinus 2, 54n, 56, 219, 222, 268, 287n Nicaean Orthodoxy 136 noetic union 23, 230, 296–97, 348, 350 eschatological 242, 245, 250, 253, 290, 359 ideal of devekut 29, 244–45, 370–71 messianism related to 359–61 unio-mystica understood as 211, 246–53, 303, 330, 333–34, 338–39, 359, 360–62 ẓaddik related to 339n Nous 145, 242n, 251, 278, 284, 285n. See also Logos Only Begotten Son, The 87, 123, 157. See Jesus Son of God 87–88, 120, 123, 157–58, 188, 199, 213, 202 Ophites 214n, 257n, 258n, 260n Pardes 301 See sod, remez Patriarchs 38n, 46n, 95, 291, 296 Active Intellect with 242n spiritual divine names with 333n personified Wisdom. See Amun Divine Wisdom as 79, 86, 179, 193, 270–71, 289, 353n Jesus identified with 176, 179 Johannine Logos and 150, 154–57, 169–70, 199, 316 memra (and Torah) related to 97, 104–6, 157 metaphor in speech of 151, 162, 166 Metatron involved with 351–53 Teacher (or sage) images of 63–66, 200–5, 203, 256 Woman (compared to Wisdom Folly) as  55–58, 59–60, 63n, 70–71, 90, 159, 161–68, 172–82 Pharisees 39–42, 45, 48n Philo’s Logos 3, 28–30, 35, 50, 78–79, 105–6, 111, 118. See Logos Active Intellect and 215–6, 218, 221, 246, 253 as second God 87, 124, 126–27 dual eschatological concept of 317–18

Index of Subjects Greek Logos related to 91, 102 Johannine Logos and 80, 83, 87, 88, 90–91, 123–26 memra and 96–98, 102, 156 messianic concept and figure related to 197–99, 329, 357–59, 361, 375 Metatron and 244–48, 253–56, 348–52 Son of Man and 318n, 319–20 prayers 37–38, 46, 230, 247n, 259n, 340–41, 343, 354 theurgical 4, 24–25, 290–99, 310 preexistent Torah 3, 92, 118, 145, 267, 274. See Torah Tree of Life as ḥokhmah related to  300–1 Prince of the Divine Presence, The 38, 191n, 217, 245, 261, 323n. See also Sar Torah; Metatron priest 94, 101 High 191, 194, 323n, 336 messianic figures related to 190–94, 199, 315–16, 322, 329, 337 purity laws of 48n, 49n Temple sacrifice and 38, 40, 46–49, 99 Wicked 191 progymnasmata 47n prophecy 18, 64, 93, 109, 144, 192, 219, 221 devekut to Active Intellect 227–32, 240–44, 247–48, 252n messianic 11, 154, 184, 192, 330–32 Mosaic 254, 288–89, 296, 325–26, 337, 340n, 349–50 pure thought 232, 273, 296, 299, 301n, 310 ḥokhmah identified with 274–75, 297 human and supernal 297n Qumran community 37, 187, 190, 193 redemption 117, 318, 320, 322, 328–331, 336, 345 individual 321, 325, 328n, 330, 344–45 intellectual 326 messianic 313n, 315n spiritualized 321–23, 325, 327, 330, 341–42, 344 resurrection 89, 175, 192, 324 rhetorical analogy 89n, 178n

Index of Subjects Samaritan literature 214n, 257–58, 259n and Gnosticism 14, 145n Sanhedrin 38, 39n, 42, 328n Sar Torah 217, 245, 261–62. See also Metatron second God 77, 104, 132, 136, 139, 149, 257 Metatron as 217 Philo’s Logos and 87, 124, 126–27 sefirot Active Intellect and 255, 296n, 355, 358 anthropomorphism related to 272–73, 282, 293, 307, 321, 367 binah related to 273–76, 293, 308–9, 311, 343 devekut to 30, 292–95, 304, 310 divine essence related to 211, 224–25, 268, 272–73, 276, 282, 303 Tree of life (and Tetragrammaton) related to 302 unit mystica to 30, 284, 291, 294–95, 300, 308–9, 311, 356–57 united by theurgical activities 339–42 self-messianization 331–32, 334 Active Intellect and 359–60 shefa 243–44, 340. See also emanation shekhinah Active Intellect and 250, 337, 350 divine presence related to 106–10, 159–60, 193, 218, 261, 263, 267, 356 Glory related to 97, 99, 106, 113, 127, 320, 266, 160 Johannine Logos and 160, 193 kavod and 218n, 246n, 247, 263 memra related to 97–100, 185n Metatron involved with 218, 245, 336 Yahoʾel identified with 333n ẓaddik united with 339–41, 361 sod 251, 270, 301, 338. See sefirot Son of God 104, 145, 336. See divine sonship begotten 87–88, 120, 123, 157–58, 188, 199, 213, 202 Jesus as 78, 158, 160, 179, 185, 224, 265, 316 Logos related to 91 Messiah and 87, 139, 146n, 183, 185, 186n, 339, 358 Metatron as 336 Son of Man and 188–89, 319, 333

439 Son of Man 180n, 186, 189, 216n, 224, 318, 319–20, 323n. See man Philo’s Logos and 318n, 319–20 Stoic Logos 68, 75, 77, 81n, 147n, 149n, 184n, 213, 284. See Logos messianism related to 185, 195, 213, 284, 329 Nomos related to 50, 126, 142 Stoicism 49–50, 81–82, 86, 159n, 195n, 222 sukkah 48 symbolism 4, 26, 178, 263–64, 317, 352–54, 358, 372. See also metaphor allegory and 26, 30, 115, 137, 144, 271, 363, 371 linguistic (letter) 204, 248–51, 277, 280, 300, 304n mythopoetic 264, 354 sefirotic (kabbalistic) 247, 268–72, 281–82, 293–94, 305–11, 339–40, 343–46, 353 sexual (gendered) 108n, 258n, 264, 341n, 354, 362–63 synkrisis 47 taamei ha-mizvot (reason for the commandments) 271 Tabernacle 36, 48, 75, 106–7, 288 Teacher 41, 55–56, 71, 73, 120–21, 192, 199 image of Amun related to 59–63 images of Jesus as 153, 172, 179, 180, 200, 203, 256, 352, 361 images (or sage-) of personified Wisdom related to 63–66, 200–5, 203, 256 Torah 192 Teacher of Righteousness 191–93, 329. See also Messiah Temple sacrifice 24, 47n, 298 priest and 38, 40, 46–49, 99 Torah study and 27, 37–40, 46, 49, 226 Tetragrammaton, The (Divine Name) 100, 111n, 112, 253n, 308–11, 351, 356. See also divine essence Active (or Agent) Intellect and 244, 350 devekut to 277, 297, 299–300, 302–4, 310–11, 331, 350 divine essence related to 112, 276–77, 279, 292, 296, 300, 302, 307–10 Elohim and 252–53

440 Tetragrammaton, The (Divine Name) (cont.) ḥokhmah and 276–80, 331, 336–37 keter (and Ein Sof ) identified with 274, 276, 292n, 308, 362 memra associated with 100, 113–14 merkavah imagery and 254–55, 280–82, 292, 296n, 350, 306, 355, 358 Metatron and 252, 261–63, 351 primordial (or heavenly) Man and 258 Tree of life (and sefirot) related to 302 unio mystica to via gematria 323n, 336 Yahoʾel and 323, 336 ẓaddik attached to 298 tiferet 273, 291–93, 311, 337n, 340–41. See sefirot Tree of Life identified with 300–1 Themistius 231, 235. See also Alexander theophany 18, 103, 335 theurgy 6, 12, 21, 23, 290–91, 304, 344–45 activities (prayers and practices) of 4, 24–25, 290–99, 310 activities of ẓaddik of 338–43, 357–63 devekut and 338, 340–44, 354–59 Thirteenth century Kabbalah (Kabbalists)  12, 22, 268, 314n, 330, 345 Throne 118, 216n, 252, 260, 262–63, 320 of Glory 246–47, 270, 296, 301 Metatron identified with 217–18 Torah Active Intellect identified with 239, 248, 253, 330–32, 336–38, 349, 354–55, 361 didactic 57 ḥokhmah identified with 267, 276, 300–1, 353, 356 Jewish Wisdom related to 53–54, 56, 62, 125, 127, 190, 199 Mosaic (Pentateuch) 36–37, 41, 43n, 56, 57n, 74n, 92–95, 100 New 332, 337–38, 360n, 362 personification of 203, 332 study 27, 37–40, 46, 49, 226 written and oral 267, 273 Tree of Knowledge 300–2, 343 Tree of Life 244n, 343 Active Intellect identified with 244, 336 ḥokhmah as preexistent Torah related to 300–1

Index of Subjects Tetragrammaton (and sefirot) related to 302 tiferet identified with 300–1 Trinity (Trinitarian doctrine, trinitarianism)  54n, 91, 104n, 119n, 136–38, 205, 376 two powers in heaven 133–37, 146n, 214, 216n, 217, 256–59. See also Memra-Logos; binitarianism unio mystica 23, 29, 230, 246–53, 296, 348, 354, 370–71 Active Intellect with 238–41, 245, 331, 335, 340, 343 ecstasy related to 245, 297, 303, 350 ḥokhmah in 295, 299, 310–11, 343, 357 noetic union understood as 211, 246–53, 303, 330, 333–34, 338–39, 359, 360–62 sefirot with 30, 284, 291, 294–95, 300, 308–9, 311, 356–57 Tetragrammaton with 297, 299, 310–11, 343 universal law 78, 195n. See laws ummānu (apkallu-) 58–60, 120–21 via perfectionis 335 via passionis 338 visio dei 285, 309 World to Come 197, 324, 326n, 327–30. See also banquet Kingdom of God and 190, 197, 317. See Kingdom of God Wisdom. See ḥokhmah Christology related to 132, 137, 147, 169, 173, 181 personified (as compared to Woman Folly) 55–58, 59–60, 63n, 70–71, 90, 159, 161–68, 172–82. See personified Wisdom Yahoʾel 216, 247, 296 Abraham identified with 296n Metatron and 214n, 322–23, 351 shekhinah identified with 333n Tetragrammaton and 323, 336 Yahweh 58, 60, 72, 89, 174, 177. See Tetragrammaton yeshiva 37–42

Index of Subjects yesod 307, 339, 341, 360–62. See ẓaddik yod 274–75, 278, 280, 301, 307–10, 356. See ḥokhmah merkavah imagery and 281–82 ẓaddik Active Intellect united with 331n, 339n, 361, 363 binah connected to 340–41, 343, 360, 362–63

441 devekut of 339–43, 360–63 Messiah (human and supernal) related to Metatron associated with 323 shekhinah united with 339–41, 361 Tetragrammaton attached to 298 theurgical activities (uniting the sefirot) of 339–43, 357–63 yesod and 307, 339, 341, 360–62 Zion 63–64 Zoharic Kabbalah 249, 306

Index of Modern Authors Albright, William F. 78 Alexander, Philip S. 217n Altmann, Alexander 215, 257, 258n, 277–78 Anderson, Gary A. 102 Anthonioz, Stéphanie 62n Ashton, John 83, 147 Aune, David 152

Dauber, Jonathan V. 271–73, 275–76, 278, 292–93, 294–95 Davies, William D. 133–34, 143, 257n Dietrich, Jan 58n Dodd, Charles H. 62n, 185 Dogniez, Cécile 142n Dunn, James D. G. 82, 86, 101, 136n

Barrett, Charles K. 124 Bennema, Cornelis 192n Berger, David 326–27 Blumenthal, David R. 241n Boccaccini, Gabriele 104 Borgen, Peder 83n, 150 Box, George H. 214 Boyarin, Daniel 18n, 82n, 90n, 91n, 97n, 104, 135, 214–15 Brant, Jo-Ann 83, 84, 155 Braslavy, Sara K. 221 Brooke, George J. 66, 71, 142 Brown, Raymond E. 80–81, 150 Bultmann, Rudolf 80–81, 147n, 150n, 169n Burney, Charles F. 112 Burrus, Virginia 128n

Edwards, Marion J. 105, 125, 145, 148n Edwards, Robert G. T. 98n, 111 Elior, Rachel 310n Evans, Greig A. 150–51

Cassirer, Ernst 269 Cazelles, Henri 60 Charlesworth, James 81–82, 98, 186n, 189, 190–91, 193 Chilton, Bruce D. 112, 126n Clarke, Ernest G. 98 Clifford, Richard 52, 53n, 54n, 55, 56n, 57, 58, 59–60, 90n, 121–22, 127, 157n, 161n, 174, 178 Cohen, Shaye J. D. 38 Cohen, Martin S. 261–62 Collins, John J. 197 Costa, Jose 104 Crenshaw, James L. 52, 53 Cross, Frank M. 93n, 94 Dal Bo, Federico 339, 340, 341n Dan, Joseph 265 Daube, David 45

Farber-Ginat, Asi 250–51, 278 Feldman, Louis H. 236n Fiebig, Paul 171 Fishbane, Michael A. 56n Fitzmyer, Joseph A. 93n Flesher, Paul V. M. 93, 101 Flusser, David 151, 170, 171n, 336n Fossum, Jarl E. 145n, 258 Fox, Michael V. 52–53, 58n, 60, 61, 120, 157, 161n, 162n, 174n Frank, Richard M. 62, 93n Georgi, Dieter 142, 168 Gerhardsson, Birger 151, 172–73 Gieschen, Charles A. 111, 113, 126, 126n Ginsburger, Moses 95 Glicksman, Andrew T. 66, 68, 159n Goldberg, Arnold 171n Goldingay, John E. 320n Goodblatt, David M. 38n, 39n Goodenough, Erwin R. 90, 147, 184 Greenfield, Jonas 60, 61 Gutmann, Alexander 39n Guttmann, Julius 237n Guttmann, Theodor 171n Harrington, Daniel J. 54n, 161n Hayes, Christian 49 Hayman, Peter 267n Hayward, Robert 99, 111–12, 125n Hecht, Richard 196

443

Index of Modern Authors Hengel, Martin 41–43, 52n, 53, 184, 187 Hidary, Richard 42n, 46–47, 48n Himmelfarb, Martha 146n Hoekema, Anthony A. 197 Hoenig, Sydney B. 42n Hurtado, Larry W. 134n Idel, Moshe 1–31, 248, 277n, 280n, 282–84, 298–99, 302–305, 313–15, 322–23, 331n, 335–37, 343, 360, 364 Jeremias, Joachim 170 Johnston, Robert M. 151, 171n Jülicher, Adolf 170 Kaufman, Stephen A. 93, 94n, 100n Keener, Craig S. 78, 89, 98, 102 Kiperwasser, Reuven 171, 178 Klein, Michael L. 94n Kloppenborg, John S. 169 Lenzi, Alan 60, 61, 157, 177 Levine, Lee 41, 46 Lieberman, Saul 44, 45, 46n Liebes, Yehuda 225, 249, 251, 269, 270n, 272, 277, 304 Macho, Alejandro D. 93, 96, 100, 101–2, 111, 113, 123, 125 Mack, Burton L. 83, 127n, 169, 179n, 190 Mantel, Hugo 42 Maybaum, Siegmund 95, 97, 124 McGrath, James F. 86 McHugh, John F. 84n, 86n, 102, 124–25 McNamara, Martin J. 93n, 96, 100–101, 111n, 113n, 124 Mendelson, Alan 43n Meroz, Ronit 302 Mettinger, Tryggve N. D. 188 Middleton, R. D. 79n, 106 Moloney, Francis 81, 82n, 83n Moore, George F. 97, 98n, 99n, 124, 136 Moreau, Jerome 182n Moulton, James H. 169n Mowinckel, Sigmund 319–20 Muñoz, León, D. 127n Najman, Hindy 56, 78n Neher, Andre 332n

Neusner, Jacob 146n, 190 Niehoff, Maren 135, 136n, 143 Odeberg, Hugo 261–62 Orlov, Andrei A. 216, 217n Pedaya, Haviva 274, 292n, 330, 345 Perkins, Pheme 153 Pessin, Sarah 219–20 Plett, Heinrich F. 25n, 26n Reiterer, Friedrich V. 64 Riesner, Rainer 151n Ringgren, Helmer 77 Robinson, James M. 169 Robinson, John A. T. 81, 101, 123n, 149–50, 193 Ronning, John L. 97, 124–25 Rubenstein, Jeffrey L. 38, 39n Runia, David T. 75n, 76n, 126, 156n, 287n Ruzer, Serge 109 Rynhold, Daniel 228 Samely, Alexander 171n Saussure, Ferdinard de 272 Schäfer, Peter 23n, 215n, 222–24, 245, 260, 264, 289 Schiffman, Lawrence 37, 40n Schipper, Bernd U. 57, 61 Scholem, Gershom 3–26, 96, 97n, 137n, 173n, 196, 218n, 247, 250n, 260, 263n, 265n, 266, 268–70, 283, 291n, 293n, 296n, 306, 313–14, 330–31, 344–45 Schwartz, Dov 324–26 Scott, Brandon B. 152 Scott, Robert B. Y. 119n, 120 Segal, Alan 133–34, 216 Sinnott, Alice M. 61, 66n, 67 Skehan, Patrick W. 63n Smith, Dwight M. 82n, 87n Sterling, Gregory E. 75n Stone, Michael E. 53n Stroumsa, Gedaliahu 137n, 213 Suggs, Marion J. 179 Swartz, Michael D. 131n Talmage, Frank 270–71 Talmon, Shemaryahu 187, 190–91, 314 Teeter, D. Andrew 70n

444 Tigchelaar, Eibert J. C. 72n Tishby, Isaiah 251, 273, 277, 277n, 278n, 300, 301–2 Tobin, Thomas 19n, 75n, 79 Urbach, Efraim E. 107n, 109n, 110n, 143, 160n, 218 Vermès, Géza 95n, 190 Vermès, Pamela 100 Viano, Maurizio 59n Vinzenz, Bilderbeck 96 Visotzky, Burton L. 44 Waltke, Bruce K. 119, 122, 162, 163n Washington, Harold C. 53n, 56n, 168n Wassertrom, Steven 267n Weeks, Stuart 168 Weiss, Tzahi 267n

Index of Modern Authors Westerman, Claus 153 White, Michael L. 185n Winston, David 68n, 69, 159, 288–89 Wise, Michael O. 191 Witherington, Ben 150, 151, 154, 169, 169n Wolfson, Elliot R. 19–20, 215, 225, 241n, 246, 250, 260n, 265, 269, 270, 271–73, 277, 282, 302–3, 304, 305–6, 322n, 343n, 353 Wolfson, Harry A. 51n, 73, 77n, 125, 144, 149, 159, 184, 194, 222, 223n, 224n, 284, 317, 375 Yadin, Azzan 98 Yoder, Christian R. 53n Young, Brad H. 151, 170 Yudelowitz, Mordechai 38n Zimmerman, Ruben 170